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: 
...
|
| Questions About Sequoia Cards |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 1
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:41 am: | 
|
I asked Ray if he heard about Dr. Shamos' interview and the article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Voting Software Vulnerable To Hackers."
Ray Coxe, New Jersey Director of Elections, said today that Election Support and Services certifies the Sequoia Advantages. He also said that the Superintendent of Elections Office certifies the tabulation and Election Management System software. Too, he stated that federal and state officials approves the overall certification for the machines review and assignment to precincts throughout the state.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/bucks _county/14229311.htm
Ray's response was that our Sequoia Advantages use different software and memory chips than what they use in Pennsylvania. He concluded therefore that our tabulation software is secure where Pennsylvania's isn't.
I'm not at all convinced. In my previous conversation with Ray, he said that he never heard of Dr. Shamos. Today, he said he knew about Dr. Shamos, the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the knowledge of how our memory chips and software are "different" from the Sequoia Advantages in Pennsylvania. How are these different from the Sequoia Advantages in Pennsylvania? Ray would not say. Does anybody have any ideas about this? Conclusion: I was lied to. Question: Why was I lied to?
Moreover, whenever I speak to Ray and bring up Dr. Shamos' name, he instantly gets edgy and immediately goes on the defensive. What is he so nervous about? These are clear indications of someone who is hiding something. But what is he hiding?
It seems to me that we have no independent certifier in place (most other states have Dr. Shamos). Election Support and Services is also directly tied to our Superintendent of Elections Office. They in turn are hired and assigned by our federal and state government officials. We therefore end up with a threeway "conflict-of-interest". Our elections are therefore biased and rigged from start to finish. Does anybody have any answers to this dilemma?
By the way, Phyllis Pearl is New Jersey's Superintendent of Elections. She claims that she never heard of Dr. Michael Ian Shamos. The same thing Ray Coxe said last week when I spoke to him. But today suddenly Ray knows about the good Doctor? I get a very uncomfortable feeling having these people in charge of our elections in New Jersey. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 273
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Harry,
Welcome you ol' dawg! So you've come over from the dark green background, eh?
Here's what I BELIEVE (disclaimer: this is all it is) is going on in New Jersey. New Jersey, as well as some other northeastern states, have a long history with, and a desire for, so-called full face ballots. That is, a ballot where all offices appear at once on one sheet or screen. PA had a love affair with it. New York had it enshrined in law for a long time. New Jersey has it as a cultural bias. Connecticut does or does not require it, depending on who you ask.
There are only a VERY few vendors that make full-face machines - notably Danaher 1242 and Sequoia Advantage (other vendors made prototypes with HUGE touchscreens, but they were outrageously expensive). Now New Jersey has painted itself into a corner regarding Danaher. Atlantic County had used the predecessor to the Danaher, the Shouptronic 1242, for MANY MANY MANY years. Atlantic County has come to hate them. (The machines were getting old and had the obsolete "impact printers" rather than "thermal printers".) In short, they were getting pretty maintenance intensive. Atlantic County insisted that New Jersey state in their HAVA plan that their machines could not be updated for HAVA compliance, and New Jersey did so, even though Pennsylvania and other states have done an upgrade path to their Shoup/Danahers. So Danahers were out in New Jersey.
That left New Jersey counties that love full-face one commercially viable product - the Sequoia Advantage, which also needed upgrades. Even Dr. Shamos believed that the vote tabulation software was fine going in to the examination. He was demonstrating to a critic how the results file could not be manipulated from outside of the Election Management System when he found the exact opposite to be true in the new software - IT COULD!
Now there sits New Jersey, having cast its lot with Sequoia Advantages in quite a few counties, and the biggest expert around finds this problem. What would you do? Dr. Who??? Never heard of him!
They simply were caught with their metaphorical pants down. They don't know how to deal with this. They had no Plan B. I frankly do not believe that there is a whit of difference between PA's and NJ's machines or software or "chips". (What the....? Chips?)
BTW, to my knowledge, Dr. Shamos only does two states' certifications, but they are big ol' states, Pennsylvania and Texas.
Do I think you were lied to? Yes. Why were you lied to? I think because they have no good option on what to do. Does that justify it? No. What do I think they should have done? They should probably do what Montgomery County, PA is doing. Use the individual voting machines, but tabulate in public with other software than the Sequoia EMS. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 274
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
By the way, Harry.
If this is the last bald-faced lie told by a New Jersey official, you are a lucky man indeed. |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Kurt, thank you for detailing and explaining our voting situation in New Jersey. You are informative.
You said, "They should probably do what Montgomery County, PA is doing. Use the individual voting machines, but tabulate in public with other software than the Sequoia EMS."
Kurt, what software would you suggest they use in place of the canned EMS software? What would I need to do to persuade them to use what you recommend?
Also, what have they to gain by telling me that our software and memory chips are "different" from Pennsylvania's? Is it because we are forced to accept these inherent risks and pretend that nothing is wrong?
What do you think I should do next to help ensure clean and fair elections in New Jersey? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 277
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Harry,
I don't know if they will do this, but each Sequoia Advantage machine prints out a results tape for that machine alone at the end of the night. That tape MUST be retained as the official tally of the vote, in most states.
That means even if they use the Sequoia EMS on Election Night, they should run the numbers from the tapes into Excel spreadsheets, or some other easily verified, repeatable, and transparent process.
I'll bet they will verify the tape totals during formal certification. You should examine all precinct-by-precinct reports with a keen eye. Examine the results for numbers that don't "smell right". If there is such a precinct, ask to see the machine tapes.
In any event, Sequoia wants to have this "sword of Damacles" out from over its head. They will almost certainly have their tabulation sotware fixed for November. Then see what your county does. They'll likely say, "Sequoia sent out an update!" Yeah, that's it, an update. But there never was a problem. Nah!!!
Finally this: in any county using Sequoia Advantage, if the Election Night returns hold surprises that shock people, tell everyone who trails to NOT concede. Make the SOB's do the certification by the letter. Remember, no Election Night concessions! Check the precinct numbers, especially if there's an "upset". |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Kurt:
I will do as you suggest throughout.
Also, I will get more information about how they plan to handle the results tapes, particularly for those machines where problems arise (ie, use spreadsheets as backup tallies verification method). I will get back to you as soon as I know more. |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 4
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
Kurt:
I very briefly spoke to Phyllis Pearl, New Jersey Superintendent of Elections, early Monday morning. She told me that from now on I am required to raise all questions and requests either by fax or by email. This rule also applies to communications I wish to have with Ray Coxe, New Jersey Director of Elections, and Tom Castellano, New Jersey Administrator of Elections. She said, "do not call back for information again".
Now I am a mild-mannered, even-tempered, easygoing gentleman. However, I find Phyllis to be unprofessional in character to say the least.
Yesterday morning, I sent an email to Phyllis, Ray and Tom. In it, I raised the following questions:
Q1. Each Sequoia Advantage machine prints out a results tape for that machine alone at the end of the night. Is the tape retained as the official tally of the vote? If not, then what is used as the official tally for the vote?
Q2. If we will be using the Sequoia Electronic Management System (EMS) on Election Night, will we be running the numbers from the tapes into Excel spreadsheets, or some other easily verified, repeatable, and transparent process? Please identify what will be used?
Q3. Will tape totals be verified during the formal certification process? Can you tell us who will be examining our counties reports results precinct-by-precinct? Do you have any contact information you can give us?
Q4. Do you have any literature available, such as pamphlets or booklets or the like, that details the operation, functionality and general layout of the Sequoia Advantages? Is there anything available that provides photographs of the machine? If yes, please email me whatever you have. Otherwise, in a follow up email response, I will give you my address to send pertinent materials using our postal mail service.
Q5. Are there any websites you can provide links to that would give us information that was asked for in Q4?
End of Questions.
Kurt, were these questions reasonable? Should I have asked them for something else? What do you think?
Now, just a few minutes ago I received an email from Phyllis quoted verbatim:
"I am in receipt of your e-mail. Currently preparing for the Primary on June 6th is my main priority. I will respond to your questions as soon as our Primary Election responsibilities have been met.
Phyllis Pearl"
I am feeling put off. Shouldn't these questions be answered well before Primaries Election Day (June 6th), which is just 20 days away? How long should I wait to get my questions answered? Please advise.
Too, neither Ray nor Tom responded to my email and it appears unlikely that they will since Phyllis put a "lid" on my request.
What do you suggest I do next?
Harry |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2464
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 11:56 am: |
|
could you do a PRR asking for all documents or correspondence in any form (email, letter, phone logs, minutes) that describe the equipment etc. etc.
ditto that describe the exact procedure for tabulating the votes and for accounting of any logs or other documentation?
etc.
You could put this into several questions, wording it better than I have done here, of course. |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 5
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Catherine:
How would I go about doing the Public Relations Report (PRR) and to whom would I address it? What would or should I include in it?
I previously asked the questions (Q4 & Q5) below to Phyllis Pearl, Ray Coxe and Tom Castellano. If and when I get an answer from them I will have the information we need:
Q4. Do you have any literature available, such as pamphlets or booklets or the like, that details the operation, functionality and general layout of the Sequoia Advantages? Is there anything available that provides photographs of the machine? If yes, please email me whatever you have. Otherwise, in a follow up email response, I will give you my address to send pertinent materials using our postal mail service.
Q5. Are there any websites you can provide links to that would give us information that was asked for in Q4?
Phyllis has currently put my request for information on "hold". It seems we can not depend on the New Jersey Superintendent of Elections office being of much help to us. So, is there anyone else I can contact who would provide answers to these questions? Please advise.
Finally, as far as I know now, the Sequoia EMS tabulation software will be used to serve as our official tallies by machine and by precinct. When I spoke to Ray a couple weeks ago he didn't think we needed to confirm tallies by spreadsheet or by a manual process. I believe we should use spreadsheets, Ray does not.
Harry |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2467
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |
|
I don't think you can ever force an official to give you an answer.
PRR is the closest thing to it, but unfortunately an official can still stonewall (e.g. I'm too busy leading up to the election). The rules about how much they can get away with vary from state to state.
Use the Advanced Search link here (scroll up and look on the left-hand side of the page here) for PRR or Public Records Request. There have been several threads and posts that go into a fair amount of detail on how to do these most effectively.
Perhaps others here who have more experience with PRRs can also weigh in. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2468
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
To clarify, in a PRR you're asking for some kind of document. So you have to find a way to reword your question in a way that makes it into a request for some kind of document (electronic, notes, etc.). You don't have to know what kind of document or its title, but you have to give enough information about the subject matter. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 295
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Catherine,
The lawyers for local officials are especially adept at deflecting PRR's. It's what they get paid for.
I was once scolded by my Solicitor for giving out too much information. I asked, "Who owns the information? You? No, it belongs to the public."
All I's need to be dotted, all T's need to be crossed, and in many states there is no penalty for illegally declining a PRR. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 568
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 4:27 am: |
|
First (this is just tactical), you should e-mail her again and say that this is not to your liking as a person who is concerned with exercising your right as a citizen to oversee the voting process. Not having said anything to the contrary is tacit approval of what she's doing.
You should be polite about it and you can jolly her to death about how you're watching the process as good citizens should, etc., but don't back off and tell her that you want to know before any elections or primaries take place.
Get a reporter into the loop. Even if you just carbon copy a reporter on your e-mails to her, you create leverage. If the list of reporters that you carbon copy grows with each uncooperative response, I suspect cooperation will soon follow. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 569
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 4:30 am: |
|
Also, copy all three officials on all questions, and start widening the net to include local elections officials, as well. You develop a press that way as a person who is willing to dig on their own and not annoy the "busy people". |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 6
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 7:51 am: |
|
Catherine\Kurt\Brant:
I'll do my best.
Thank you all for your input.
Harry |
Linda Franz
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Linda_franz
Post Number: 359
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 8:25 am: |
|
Harry,
I've been taught to do it this way, and "widening the net" of who gets notified about the request is a good idea:
Initial request to the specific official.
If it is ignored or denied, then work your way up the chain of command. Who is their supervisor?
It is polite and proper to give them a chance to respond first. If they do not, then you have a right to ask again and CC the next in command.
If there is a board or council involved, either let them all know too when you begin CC'ing or your specific representative on the council, if it's set up that way.
Know your local ordinances and state laws, and about the second time you have to ask, quote that in your request so they know you know.
There should also be something pertaining to response time. That response dates from the initial request.
Also make sure that you have a CC to "file" on there, and email a copy of the request to yourself when you send it out to anyone else.
Paper trails, verifiable, are important. |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 7
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Kurt\Catherine\Brant:
I spoke to Joe Smrriglio, New Jersey Assistant Administrator of the County Board of Elections\Superintendent of Elections Offices today. He was a pleasure to talk to. He is both knowledgeable and personable. Here are the questions I obtained answers for:
Q1. Each Sequoia Advantage machine prints out a results tape for that machine alone at the end of the night. Is the tape retained as the official tally of the vote? If not, then what is used as the official tally for the vote?
A1: Yes, the tape for each machine is retained as the official tally of the vote. The results tape is printed out and they are also saved in and stored on a machine cartridge. These cartridges are very similar to video cassettes and are stored inside the machines themselves. Every machine has its own cartridge per election. Old cartridges are kept in storage that are from previous elections in the event they are needed for future reference.
Q2. If we will be using the Sequoia Electronic Management System (EMS) on Election Night, will we be running the numbers from the tapes into Excel spreadsheets, or some other easily verified, repeatable, and transparent process? Please identify what will be used?
A2: These are recorded and logged onto Camden County’s web page, www.camdencounty.com at the end of Election Night. Electronic worksheets by machine are used as an external source for comparing to and cross-checking with the EMS tabulation software. If there are any differences between the two, printed tapes are used to check against votes recorded individually on said worksheets.
Q3. Will tape totals be verified during the formal certification process? Can you tell us who will be examining our counties reports results precinct-by-precinct? Do you have any contact information you can give us?
A3: Yes, totals are verified during the formal certification process. The Department of the County Clerk of Elections of Camden will examine our counties reports results precinct-by-precinct. I have a phone number for their department should anybody need it or want it.
Q4. Do you have any literature available, such as pamphlets or booklets or the like, that details the operation, functionality and general layout of the Sequoia Advantages? Is there anything available that provides photographs of the machine? If yes, please email me whatever you have. Otherwise, in a follow up email response, I will give you my address to send pertinent materials using our postal mail service.
A4: Yes, brochures and only one picture of the Sequoia AVC Advantage Full Face DRE in Voting Position can be obtained here at this website. This is the official Sequoia website originating out of California. He said that no other pictures have been released for public viewing. Election Officials, on the other hand, have the right to take photographs of the machines under certain circumstances. However, they are not allowed to copy, share or print them with anyone who is not an Election Official.
http://www.sequoiavote.com/productguide.php?product=AVC%20Advantage&type=Introdu ction
Q5. Are there any websites you can provide links to that would give us information that was asked for in Q4?
A5: Joe gave me the same web address as in A4. He said that as far as he knows this type of information can not be obtained anywhere else. However, should I somehow discover another web location that has information of this nature, I am to let him know about it at once.
http://www.sequoiavote.com/productguide.php?product=AVC%20Advantage&type=Introdu ction
Do these answers seem feasible to everybody? Please advise.
In any event, I again want to thank you all for your terrific ideas. In the future I may still have to use the methods you suggested. But for now, does this seem satisfactory?
Linda,
With your suggestion I managed to make a friend of Jeff Shields, Staff Writer\Reporter for Philadelphia Inquirer. He told me that should I need to correspond by email to anyone in the New Jersey Superintendent of Elections Office in the future I can certainly carbon copy him. He also gave me Nancy Petersen’s email address, a colleague of his, to carbon copy as well although I did not speak with her as yet.
Thank you for your great suggestions. I didn't anticipate making any friends along the way.
Kurt,
What should be my next plan of action?
Harry |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 330
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Harry,
quote:I didn't anticipate making any friends along the way.
I told you that you would receive excellent advice and guidance from the BBV members if you came to the 1-on-1 consulting forum for help and it looks as though several of our members have done just that. I'm not surprised. BBV is fortunate to have the best of the best in its membership! We certainly welcome you as one of our members.
Most importantly, you're off to a good start on the road to making real change in "Jersey". Keep up the good work. We're with you all the way.
Kathleen
(Message edited by admin_ii on May 18, 2006)
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW:
(1) Use Freedom of Information, public records requests ("All American Paper Chase")
(2) Try Dumpster Diving for Democracy
(3) Candid America Project - Don't leave home without your camcorder
HOW TO DO IT: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2485
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Harry, congratulations on getting answers to your questions and making friends along the way.
Others who know more about the Sequoia Advantage may have additional questions to suggest.
It would be good to find out what individual (or title) is the one in charge for reconciling the figures. The "Department of the County Clerk of Elections of Camden" seems vague, as if it could be anyone or several people. This task is so important that there should be clear accountability IMO.
Does anyone else find it strange that no one is allowed to photograph the voting machine, and that this seems to be imposed by the vendor? This suggests that you may want to file a PRR to ask for all contracts and any other correspondence (written, email, etc.) between the County and Sequoia. If restricting access to the public of photographs, etc. of the voting machines was a condition of the sale I'd want to see it in writing before I believe it.
Is there a State or County regulation that prohibits photographing the voting machine? What right does the vendor have to forbid citizens to photograph voting machines? This does not seem right at all; it is as if Sequoia is effectively being allowed to write laws or regulations for the State. The voter gets to see the machine when they vote, right? And presumably they could look at it then. Why couldn't they also photograph it on election day?
If someone took photos with their cell phone and put them on the internet, what laws would have been broken? Are there signs up in voting booths saying: "It is forbidden to photograph or otherwise visually record the voting machine" and stating a statute or regulation?
This seems a little odd to me. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 304
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 4:57 am: |
|
Harry,
I'm not really surprised about much you have encountered. The first person you spoke to is probably "under the gun" to finish machine prepararions. 2-3 weeks out before an election is the absolute worst time for an election director. The mass of job tasks is simply unbelievable!
When you got to Joe Smrriglio you got the right guy.
The good news is that if the processes Joe has talked about actually happen "on the ground" , then the Advantage can be a good option. It sounds as if they are going to use the EMS software as an interim step only, for quick turnaround of results. And that's probably okay. Any results reported on election night should still be taken with a grain of salt.
Here's a dirty little secret from the real world of election administration: "unofficial results" actually means "we have no clue whether these results are right or not". The election night numbers are almost never audited, checked for ridiculous numbers, or verified in any way.
Spread the word. Take election night returns with a grain of salt, especially if weird results are coming up. Keep your powder dry for the official canvas.
Just for the record, the Advantage is not your typical DRE. It does not have a changeable application, OS, or bootloader. It is more like an electrically operated lever machine. I have a very high level of confidence in the basic machine. The only unresolved issue is the security of the Sequoia tabulation software. As long as every county saves those paper tapes as proof, there is a simple way to check the integrity of the results. |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 8
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 9:16 am: |
|
Thank you all for your help and really great input.
I will utilize your advice and put it into practice as far as I am able to do so.
Harry |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 9
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 12:08 am: |
|
Kurt\Catherine\Brant\Linda\Kathleen:
On Friday I obtained answers to the following questions:
Q1: Since the Department of the County Clerk of Elections of Camden is tasked with tallying and verifying counties reports results precinct-by-precinct at the end of Election Night, can you tell me what are the names and\or titles of the people who are in charge of reconciling the voting results? (I posed this question to Joe Smrriglio, New Jersey Assistant Administrator of the County Board of Elections Office.)
A1: Phyllis Pearl – Superintendent of Elections
Al Mungiuoli – County Clerk of Elections
Q2: Would it be legal for a voter such as myself to take pictures of one of our Sequoia Advantages on Primaries Night or Election Night? (I posed this question to Joe Smrriglio.)
A2: No, it is not legal.
Q3: Is there a State or County regulation that prohibits photographing the voting machines? (I posed this question separately to Joe Smrriglio and then to Leslie Bradley, County Clerk for the Superintendent of Elections.)
A3: They both agreed that state law prohibits photographing electronic voting machines.
Q4: Does Sequoia, our vendor, have anything to do with this law? (I posed this question to Joe Smrriglio and Leslie Bradley.)
A4: They both agreed that Sequoia is not responsible for this imposed legal restriction on voters.
Does anybody have anything else they would like to add before I tackle Primaries day on June 6th?
Harry |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2532
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 1:27 am: |
|
Find out the exact State law(s) they refer to and read it for yourself. Don't just taking anyone's word for it. You can be aware of any circumstances in which this law might not apply, but you may not find out from an official about this because they have a different lens for thinking about the law than you do.
For example, is it only a law against photographing state equipment that is in a private place? If so, then if a voting machine is being carried into or out of a building then it could be photographed.
If there is anything the voting machine fiasco should have taught us all, it is not to take anyone's word for something. Even the most honest and well-meaning official or vendor representative can be badly wrong. For example, many election officials genuinely believe that the wording of HAVA alone mandates electronic voting equipment, which it doesn't. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 574
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 4:39 am: |
|
This doesn't pass the smell test. Doesn't this strike all you folks as extremely odd? Wouldn't Diebold have done this if they could? How do you write a law that says that someone can't take a picture of a voting machine? And these haven't appeared in news stories? How do they do their "they're using our technology and loving it" stories?
Make a friend in one of the Board of Elections of your state, ask him to request information from the vendor, and have him give you one of the brochures. That will be freely given and can be referred to in your investigations. I wouldn't copy it though. If they've copyrighted the appearance of their device, I suppose they can get away with telling you that you can't photograph it. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2563
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 4:51 am: |
|
This definitely strange and I wish some of the legal eagles would weigh in with their opinion. I don't know anything about NJ laws but I cannot imagine there is a law that says no one can photograph voting machines, so I want to know exactly what the law does say, and/or what contractual agreements the NJ BOE/SoS has made with the vendor to that effect, if any. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 339
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 6:37 am: |
|
I videotaped the Diebold TSx touch screens in Cuyahoga County during a demonstraton of the machine.
John Washburn was there as well, and when he asked the Diebold salesperson to open the back, I was allowed to videotape that too.
Harry, it is my understanding that Phyllis Pearl told you this? I would suggest you ask her to give you the specific NJ statute that says it's against the law to photograph a voting machine. Please post it, once you've gotten it. Thanks.
Kathleen
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW:
(1) Use Freedom of Information, public records requests ("All American Paper Chase")
(2) Try Dumpster Diving for Democracy
(3) Candid America Project - Don't leave home without your camcorder
HOW TO DO IT: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
|
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 10
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 7:45 am: |
|
To All:
The Open Public Records Act (OPRA) of New Jersey requires that voters and\or citizens of New Jersey make public records requests using the website link below.
http://www.njpublicsafety.com/opra/index.html
Any request for public records must be done using this method according to State regulations. Response times will take at least 7 days after requests are made.
Harry |
Michael C. Duff
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seemlessweb
Post Number: 1
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 9:58 am: |
|
New Jersey Election law is located in Title 19 of the New Jersey statutes. The specific requirements for electronic voting systems are at NJSA 19:53A. There are no statutory provisions speaking to photographing of polling places (I just checked). It is possible that a regulation speaks to the issue. If it exists it is probably premised on non-interference with voters or the polling process. If there is continued refusal to articulate I would consider going into Superior Court to obtain declaratory relief that photographing does not violate election law. This will at least force them to say something because even if you can techinically be thrown out on procedural grounds for not stating a cause of action (and I'm not sure that is the case) the lack of a response in that posture would be wonderful publicity, for obvious reasons. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 340
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:26 am: |
|
Michael,
Thanks so much for checking the legal parameters involved here. Also, it was very helpful that you could suggest a recourse for Harry to take.
BTW, Harry called me this a.m. in response to my post that he get the NJ statute. He did say it is a "state regulation" that requires this, according to the election officials in his county.
I told him to call the county attorney and get from him in writing what regulation specifically states that photographing an election machine is illegal and to post his response here.
Thanks again for your help.
Kathleen
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW:
(1) Use Freedom of Information, public records requests ("All American Paper Chase")
(2) Try Dumpster Diving for Democracy
(3) Candid America Project - Don't leave home without your camcorder
HOW TO DO IT: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2574
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
I could see that one should not be allowed to photograph a voting machine while someone was actually voting on it (because that could be construed as interfering with a voter or the polling process). But if--and we still don't know yet--that is the only prohibition, it might not prevent someone from photographic a voting machine when not in use for an election, or while using it oneself. . . It'll be interesting to see what Harry gleans from his inquiry. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 579
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 2:08 pm: |
|
None of that should prohibit photographing an idle voting machine. Before/between/after - voting. |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 11
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Michael C. Duff:
Are you an Attorney? How might I get access to the code\language for Title 19, NJSA 19:53A? May I use your name in any email requests that I might make to Election Officials in New Jersey?
Harry |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 12
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 3:17 am: |
|
To All:
So far it has been my experience that no matter what election official I speak to, or what elections office they come out of, they are more nervous than a kennel of Cheshire cats. I like cats, it’s just a pun. Anyway, they will double-talk you, dodge you at every turn, lie to you, mislead you, misdirect you, misinform you or just plum ignore you altogether. Their behavior is both dubious and unsettling.
To date, I have been in communication with a wide range of election officials over the telephone. As for email communications it’s been all one-sided except for a single solitary response from Phyllis Pearl, Superintendent of Elections (SoE), to blow me off like a passing feather in the midst of a raging tornado. It is vividly clear that these people believe that they owe no allegiance whatsoever to the voters or citizens of New Jersey. It is disgraceful, appalling, unprofessional and totally unacceptable.
I have received a number of recommendations from various BBV members in this thread. I have taken these very seriously and have put them into practice inasmuch as it was possible for me to do so. Despite these measures our elections officials act imperviously and are unmoved by any action I take. For example, I have been carbon copying reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer in messages to SoE officials. Still, I am not acknowledged.
Let me speak a bit about Sequoia, our vendor. People seem to think that corresponding with them is a simple task. Just the opposite is true. To explain, there is only one spokesperson for anything Sequoia voting machines, Michelle Schaeffer, at 1-800-347-4702, 1-510-875-1200, 1-800-869-1936. All three numbers takes you to the same place. She never picks up her telephone – you must leave messages on her answering machine. After leaving several messages, I still didn’t get a return call. As it turns out Michelle has a remote receptionist, Maryland, who told me that Michelle works out of her home in Texas! Why Texas? Maryland said that Michelle is difficult to connect with but she would eventually call back. I don’t plan on waiting with bated breath. By the way, I asked Maryland for Michelle’s email address. She told me that it was private and that I must ask Michelle for it if I want it. The whole setup is evasive, rude and unprofessional.
I’m tired of beating around the “bush”. I guess I’m getting too old for this kind of rhetoric. I want an answer to this illusive so-called photography statute once and for all. So thanks to advice I received from Kathleen Wynne yesterday I called our Attorney Generals Office. I was transferred to Donna Barber, Senior Management Assistant for the Division of Elections who then connected me with Maria Del Valle-Koch, Deputy Director for the Division of Elections. I raised these questions to Maria and Donna:
Q1: Please identify the exact State statute or County regulation that prohibits voters from photographing our Sequoia Advantage Electronic Voting Machines.
A1: Maria gave me a very long winded answer. She said, “Elections are chaotic by nature. Polling places have all kinds of problems they have to deal with. We can not have people coming in and out of voting places adding to this chaos by bringing in cameras, taking pictures of voting machines and causing more confusion. What do you need pictures of voting machines for, anyway?” I replied, “I have no specific reason. I just want to know if it is legal or illegal. If it is illegal, under what circumstances it might be legal if taking pictures were done before, after or in between voting times.” She replied, “We will get back to you on this. I’ll give you our email addresses and you can raise your questions again there. What you are asking of us may take some time and require digging to get to the bottom of. One way or another we will give you an answer.” I replied, “How long do you think it might take you to get back to me?” Maria answered, “It all depends on the gathering of the information and what third parties we may have to involve in this.” I replied, “Thank you. I will forward you my questions at once.”
Q2: Please email me the code and language for this law.
A2: Maria said, “OK, we’ll give you what we find.”
Q3: Is it only a law against photographing State equipment that is in a private place? If so, then if a voting machine is being carried into or out of a building, could it then be photographed?
A3: Maria said, “I can’t give you a definite answer on this right now but we will find out for you.”
Q4: Has the State of New Jersey Board of Elections or Superintendent of Elections or any other Elections office made any contractual agreements with our vendor, Sequoia, that prohibits photographing their machines?
A4: Maria said, “Not to our knowledge. However, you should get in touch with the vendor yourself and ask them.” I replied, “OK, Maria, I will do that.”
End of Questions.
A little later in the day I contacted the County Counsels Office and spoke to our Assistant County Attorney, Howard L. Goldberg. I asked him the same questions I asked Maria and Donna from the Division of Elections:
Q1: Please identify the exact State statute or County regulation that prohibits voters from photographing our Sequoia Advantage Electronic Voting Machines.
A1: Howard said in a naïve way, “There is a law against this? Who told you that photographing voting machines were illegal?” I replied, “Officials from the Superintendent of Elections office, among others.” Howard replied, “We don’t deal with election laws as a matter of fact. We are all general law practitioners here. However, I will check on this but we are really busy around here and may not be able to get to it right away.” I replied, “Fine, but I must insist that I get an answer well before our Primaries Election Day, June 6th.” Harold asked, “Why would you want to take pictures of an election machine? What exactly do you need these pictures for? Who are you affiliated with? Who exactly are you, Harry? It seems strange to me that anyone would want to do this.” I replied, “I am a member of, and a volunteer for, Black Box Voting Organization. A nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501c(3) consumer protection group organization funded by citizen donations. We don’t want the pictures for any particular reason. For example, I may want them for my scrap book. We just want to know what the law is regarding this issue.” Howard replied, “OK, I won’t promise you anything but if I have time I will look this up. Fax me your questions.” I replied, my fax machine is on the blink, may I email you my questions?” Howard answered, “Yes, you can email them to me.” I added, “Is Deborah Katz the County Attorney Counsel?” Howard replied, “Yes, she is my fearless leader.” I asked, “May I communicate with her or include her in this correspondence?” Howard answered abruptly, “No, she will not respond to you. That’s what I’m here for.” I continued, “Are you familiar with Title 19 of the NJ statutes, 19:53A? Howard answered, “Yes.” I replied, “Did you know that according to this law there are no
statutory provisions speaking to photographing of polling places?” Howard answered unconvincingly, “No, I didn’t know that. I told you earlier that we are not elections experts here.” I replied, “You did say that but are you familiar with these statutes? Howard did not comment on this. A strangely subtle contradiction on his part I thought to myself.”
Q2: Please email me the code and language for this law.
A2: If I can get around to it you will have it.
Q3: Is it only a law against photographing State equipment that is in a private place? If so, then if a voting machine is being carried into or out of a building, could it then be photographed?
A3: I’ll let you know.
Q4: Has the State of New Jersey Board of Elections or Superintendent of Elections or any other Elections office made any contractual agreements with our vendor, Sequoia, that prohibits photographing their machines?
A4: Why don’t you call the vendor? They should be able to give you an answer.
End of Questions.
Michael C. Duff:
You said, “If there is continued refusal to articulate I would consider going into Superior Court to obtain declaratory relief that photographing does not violate election law. This will at least force them to say something because even if you can technically be thrown out on procedural grounds for not stating a cause of action (and I'm not sure that is the case) the lack of a response in that posture would be wonderful publicity, for obvious reasons.”
I wouldn’t know where to begin with this suggestion. Would you mind outlining the steps, procedures and process I would have to go through to effectively make this happen? Please be as detailed as possible.
Finally, I want to give everybody a hearty thank you who helped me in this thread. You are all a really terrific group of people.
Harry |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 580
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 5:09 am: |
|
In my family we have the expression "ruthlessly cheerful". This is where you're unfailingly pleasant and polite, but completely implacable in working toward your goal.
Be ruthlessly cheerful. Be polite, be persistant, and be on the record; use either e-mail (and keep printed copies in a file) or use registered letters (probably better, though slower). Give people a time limit to respond to you (and tell them that you're doing that, and then e-mail/registered letter them again, letting them know that you find their lack of responsiveness curious and that you're CC'ing news people on this follow-up email/registered letter. With each subsequent e-mail/registered letter, widen the net. They may hate your guts in a fairly short amount of time, but they'll be responsive. |
Michael W Mather
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Gypsy
Post Number: 38
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:46 am: |
|
Harry: How might I get access to the code\language for Title 19, NJSA 19:53A?
There is a link on the NJ Division of Elections web site for NJ Election Law: Title 19, but it appears to be broken. After looking at the html source and some trial and error, I found Title 19 here:
http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=30777412&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={8A3D}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42
OK, looks like BBV site can't handle this long url. Cut and paste the whole thing into the address box of your browser.
(Message edited by gypsy on May 23, 2006)
(Message edited by gypsy on May 23, 2006) |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 13
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:56 am: |
|
To All:
I was very upset today with an unexpected email response I received from Howard L. Goldberg, Assistant County Counsel Attorney, at 1-856-225-5543, Fax: 856-756-2244, at 8:08 AM EST. Here is what he had to say to me word for word:
"Dear Mr. Conrow,
When I spoke to you yesterday afternoon I did so as a courtesy despite the fact, as I explained to you, that this office is legal counsel to the Camden County government and not lawyers for the general public. Since your inquiry seemed to be focused on the voting machines themselves and not the actual election process, I provided you with information about the manufacturer of the voting machines, including their toll-free telephone number and fax number. I also told you that if I had the time, I would briefly research your question regarding any prohibitions which may exist against your taking photographs of the voting machines. I told you that I did not immediately have answers to your questions on that issue, having never before encountered such a request. I certainly did not tell you that this office was not knowledgeable about election law.
This morning I became aware that you made reference to our conversation on a web site for your organization. In your posting you ascribed to me numerous statements which I did not make, completely misquoted others I did make, and thoroughly mischaracterized the nature of my comments. It is quite evident that the purpose of your telephone call was not to obtain legitimate information but was, instead, an attempt to invent fodder for your internet postings which would you could then use to support your pre-existing agenda. Obviously, that was not my understanding when I offered to assist you in your inquiry. Therefore, if you actually do want answers to the legal questions you posed, I recommend that you retain an attorney at your own expense to research those questions for you.
Howard L. Goldberg"
Let me make a few things perfectly clear.
1) I HAVE NO REASON IN THIS WORLD TO DISSUADE ANYONE AT ANYTIME FROM ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO MAINTAIN AND EXPRESS THE TRUTH AS IT IS PRESENTED. If I can't demonstrate a level of candor, honesty, integrity, and professionalism at all times then I have no business communicating with anybody in this life as we know it.
2) I DO NOT HAVE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM ANY PRE-EXISTING AGENDA. Voters are entitled to a fair, equal, verifiable and bias-free voting process. This especially includes the electronic voting equipment we use. The equipment's importance should not be undermined.
3) AS WE SPEAK, MICHELLE SHAFER, SPOKESPERSON FOR OUR MANUFACTURER, SEQUOIA CALLED ME JUST NOW. So it is true that the toll-free number Mr. Goldberg gave me is alive and well. Thank you for this one, Mr. Goldberg. Your welcome, Harry. Michelle was a real pleasure to speak to. She said that to her knowledge there are no existing contractual agreements or laws prohibiting, limiting or preventing a voter from photographing their machines. We exchanged email addresses and Michelle promised to send me some pictures of the Sequoia Advantages. She has professionalism, tact and style. Thank you, Michelle.
4) THE DETAILS OF THE CONVERSATION I PRESENTED TO ALL ON THIS THREAD THAT I HAD WITH MR. GOLDBERG ARE INDEED ACCURATE AND WITHOUT OVERSTATEMENT. He made it clear that election law was not their forte but that he would help me IF he had time. Moreover, the statements I made were neither incorrect, misquoted or mischaracterized. I stand by them. There is a quote which states, "Never let the facts get in the way of a situation." At my age, I am not a man who tells tall tales out of high school. Life is simply too short. "Fodder" is for those who relish in folly. This is no game. You can bank on that one, Mr. Goldberg.
Needless to say, Mr. Goldberg is an unprofessional bureaucratic puppet who clearly holds no allegiance to voters. Doesn't anybody here find it peculiar that Mr. Goldberg and his staff are entirely too busy to help a voter but they have plenty of time to sift and read through thousands of posts here at Black Box Voting? Is there not something seriously wrong with this picture?
A penny for your thoughts?
Harry |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 14
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
Michael W Mather:
You said: "There is a link on the NJ Division of Elections web site for NJ Election Law: Title 19, but it appears to be broken. After looking at the html source and some trial and error, I found Title 19 here:"
http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=30777412&Depth=2&dept h=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nf o&record={8A3D}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42
I am actually looking for the language written into law for "NJSA 19:53A". Would you mind either linking or instructing me as to how to get to this regulation?
I appreciate your help, Michael.
Harry |
Patrick J. Kobly
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pkobly
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Harry,
Just a few thoughts...
1) Mr. Goldberg was likely quite correct in indicating that he is counsel for the county, and not the general public. As such, research that he was offering to do to help track down the phantom statute / regulation is quite outside of his duties (most likely out of some level of curiosity piqued by your questions).
2) The context in which you posted your description of a conversation with him likely provoked the current defensiveness. The comment was posted into a thread where you have previously accused a number of individuals of being unprofessional and rude. The immediate expected reaction would be to disclaim everything and drop all ties.
3) He likely became aware of the post by having it brought to his attention by somebody else. It is certainly likely that PR wings of the manufacturers and some government organization are watching these fora. It is further likely that he experienced some level of back-pressure as a result of your post.
Perhaps it is a wise idea to help people help us. When somebody has offered to do something for you, it may be helpful to consider ongoing conversations as somewhat confidential. Don't burn someone before they give you something. Sit on the conversation until either you got what you wanted or you are fairly certain you're not going to get it. |
Michael W Mather
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Gypsy
Post Number: 40
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Harry, this NJ law site displays one page of text at a time. There are arrow buttons near the top to navigate to the next page of text (and of course there are mucho many pages). The url below will take you to the beginning of section 53.
http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=30785550&Depth=2&dept h=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nf o&record={9052}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42
(When you paste the url into your browser address box, make sure there are no spaces between any of the characters. ) |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 15
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Patrick J. Kobly:
You are 100 % correct on point # 3. I am quite sure that our posts are being monitored by vendors and government agencies alike. I never doubted this for a moment. What democracy do we have when our every word is CENSORED by both big business and our government? Remind me, Patrick, why are we here?
As for point # 1, he made it clear that it was questionable right from the beginning as to whether or not he could obtain any of the information I was asking for. It was also a question of how busy they are - they don't have time for these kinds of requests.
As for point # 2, everything I said about these people is true. If people find this disturbing perhaps I should leave this effort to the rest of you and bail out now. I will not, under any uncertain terms, apologize for the truth. I am NOT a "yes" man. I would rather have in my court only one person who will not yield with an implacable cause than a thousand who will submit at the slightest sign of resistance.
You said: "Perhaps it is a wise idea to help people help us. When somebody has offered to do something for you, it may be helpful to consider ongoing conversations as somewhat confidential. Don't burn someone before they give you something. Sit on the conversation until either you got what you wanted or you are fairly certain you're not going to get it."
On the one hand, you are absolutely right. From now on I shouldn't say a word until I get definite responses from people I correspond with. In the meantime, and for a long time, it may appear that I am doing nothing at all. This I believe, however, would be the wrong impression to leave
with other members of BBV who wish to get detailed feedback or progress reports. I feel this will hamper effective communications with them. Also, to the greatest extent, I have been unsuccessful in getting answers, particularly from top election officials to date. For these I would have been forever "silent". Moreover, I thought I was trying to work with people and doing that well all things considered, but sometimes they don't want to work with us. Sometimes one person's cause is another person's ill-effect. Do you understand my meaning?
Kathleen Wynne made it clear to me that I should keep everybody updated and posted. This includes details about telephone conversations, email messages or anything else that is informative to BBV. Perhaps I misunderstood what was needed here. I feel now that I am getting mixed messages.
Possibly I am the wrong person for the job at hand? Maybe someone else should represent New Jersey? At this point, I would welcome them with open arms.
Harry |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 16
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Michael W Mather:
I am unable to access this link.
http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=30785550&Depth=2&dept h=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nf o&record={9052}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42
Harry |
Harry J. Conrow
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Harry0123
Post Number: 17
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
To all at BBV:
I hereby tender my resignation from BBV. You are a great bunch of folks and I wish you all the very best of luck in your continuing, untiring efforts in serving the best interest of our voters and in preserving our democracy in America.
Sincerely and Respectfully Yours,
Harry |
Pat Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 339
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Harry, before you go here are two links that you may find helpful for finding statutes in any state.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes2.html
http://www.lawresearch.com/v2/statute/statstate.htm#elections
I hope these help.
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2601
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Harry, there's no one "in charge" of how anyone here suggests situations be handled. We're a motley crew of individuals, and each will have their own perspective. There isn't a BBV policy (other than be reasonably polite, record or get things in writing as much as possible, etc.). Members do their own thing and take responsibility for their own actions. If I post somewhere I do that as a private individual and not as a representative of BBV.
I can understand Patrick's observation that you might shoot yourself in the foot by saying something that might make someone defensive, when you're hoping for that person's cooperation. That's true in all human relationships.
Patrick may also be correct that this person may have assumed privacy and that he may have come under fire from his own supervisor. (If that's the case then the supervisor should be criticized.)
It's actually quite helpful and revealing to see how officials have responded to your requests. Most people--citizens, media, even election officials--have little appreciation for just how difficult it can be to prise out a small bit of relevant information out of the officials who are supposed to serve us, the public.
You made it very clear how helpful Sequoia's Michelle Shafer was, and emphasized this in your narrative. It's obvious that you have no personal agenda.
It's unreasonable for obstructive officials or vendors to expect that their uncooperative attitudes, stonewalling or lack of accurate information will go unremarked. |
Michael W Mather
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Gypsy
Post Number: 41
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Harry,
If you happen to be checking back, the url address I gave is not an active link, because the BBV site software was unable to convert the address into a proper hyperlink (I am guessing because it contains bracket characters '{' and '}' that the software reserves for user commands). So one has to copy and paste the whole address into the browser address box. (I tested that it works in IE and firefox browsers) If the page you copy it from has separated the address into more than one line, you may have to paste the part from each line separately. And you must remove any accidental spaces, like the one between the 't' and 'h' in 'depth' in the address as it appears in your post above. When I pasted it into my browser, there was also a space between 'f' and 'o' in 'statutes.nfo' to delete.
These type of consideration can often help to get complex web addresses to work. |
Michael C. Duff
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seemlessweb
Post Number: 2
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 8:00 am: |
|
To Harry and others on this link:
I've been preparing for trial and have not had a chance to look at the board recently.
I am an African-American, former baggage loader for US Air who went back to college at age 29, did well as a philosophy major, and went from there to Harvard Law School at the age of 32. Since 1995, I have been a labor litigator in both private and government practice. This August, I commence duties as a professor of law at the University of Wyoming. If it is possible to transition from baggage loader to professor of law, it is possible (still) to do anything.
You can assume that if you are doing anything worth doing you will be noticed. If you threaten power, you will be harrassed, harried and browbeaten. If you are not frightened by this, you are not paying attention. But if you stop fighting in response to it, the game is over.
Back to the substance of this - There is nothing in Title 19 speaking to photographing in polling places. Period. Send me an email at seemlessweb@yahoo.com and I will send you in text version (if necessary) the entire content of the relevent portion of the statute, which is not lengthy. As a (soon to be former) government practitioner and litigator I can tell you that the state sounds like it is blowing smoke. I believe I would flat out tell them that I intended to photograph and that if they did not tell me right now what law I would be violating I would argue (in the event of any action taken against me) that I had no notice that my actions could possibly be unlawful, and that the state's action against me was unconstitutionally vague. Is this risky? Sure. But on the other hand, what is the state's remedy for your violation of an (apparently) non-existent statute?
Regarding New Jersey law generally (including declaratory judgments), you should be able to find anything you need here. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/ I hope someone will pick up for Harry. I'd love to help more, but I am in Minnesota on my way to Wyoming. |
Michael C. Duff
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seemlessweb
Post Number: 3
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 8:07 am: |
|
Oh, and by the way, whomever was transmitting information to Goldberg can feel free to tell him that, based on the representations of his responses to Harry (which have the ring of truth), I think he is an overpaid dope. Now if he would like to litigate over this statement I would be happy to do so. However, such litigation always bears risks inasmuch as truth continues to be an absolute defense to allegations of defamation. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 590
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:48 am: |
|
Boy, Michael, I don't think I've ever gotten to use 'inasmuch' before, well done! |
|
|
