Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Contact Moderators
Administration
|
| 7-26-2005: BBV Board Member Arrested ... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 975
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 13 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:25 pm: | 
|
VIEWING THE DIEBOLD VOTE-TALLYING SCREEN PROHIBITED
Update - Tabulation results appear odd for July 26 election
Jim March, a member of the Black Box Voting board of directors, was arrested Tuesday evening for trying to observe the Diebold central tabulator (vote tallying machine) as the votes were being counted in San Diego's mayoral election (July 26).
According to Jim Hamilton, an elections integrity advocate from San Diego, he and March visited the office of the registrar of elections earlier in the day. During this visit, March made two requests, which were refused by Mikel Haas, the San Diego Registrar of elections.
1) March asked that the central tabulator, the computer that tallies up the votes from all the precincts, be positioned so that citizens could observe it. According to Hamilton, this would have required simply moving a table a few feet.
2) March also asked for a copy of the ".gbf" files -- the vote tally files collected during the course of tabulation – to be provided for examination after the election.
During the tallying of the election, the Diebold computer was positioned too far away for citizens to read the screen. Citizens could not watch error messages, or even perceive significant anomalies or malfunctions.
Unable to see the screen, March went into the office where the tabulator was housed. Two deputies followed him and escorted him out.
According to Hamilton: "He was not belligerent, not at all. After he went inside the tabulator room he came [was escorted] out and he said learly 'I’m not resisting.' They handcuffed
him, took him out of the building. They put him in a squad car. They’re going to take him to the police station, book him and take him to jail," said Hamilton. "He’s getting charged with a felony, 'interfering with an election official.'"
March's actions are the culmination of two years of increasing frustration with the refusal of election officials to respond to security deficiencies in the voting machines. The software that tallies the votes in San Diego is made by Diebold Election Systems, a company that has already paid the state of California $2.8 million for making false claims, due to a lawsuit filed by March and Black Box Voting founder Bev Harris.
On July 4, a report was released by European computer security expert Harri Hursti, revealing that the Diebold voting system contains profound architectural flaws. "It is open for business," says Hursti, who demonstrated the flaws on Leon County, Florida Diebold machines. He penetrated the voting system in less than five minutes, manipulating vote reports in a way that was undetectable.
Despite the critical security alert issued by Hursti, San Diego County sent 713 voting machines home with poll workers, increasing the risk that the "memory cards" housed in the machines could be hacked, and removing the argument that "inside access" was carefully
safeguarded.
The arrest of Jim March underlines a fundamental problem facing Americans today as, increasingly, they lose the ability to monitor, verify, or watch any part of the counting process.
The San Diego registrar of elections knew of the security flaws in the voting system. Diebold has never denied the vulnerability identified in Hursti's report, found at http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVreport.pdf.
Despite knowledge of the increased risks, Haas made the decision to create additional vulnerability by sending the machines home with hundreds of poll workers.
While San Diego officials will no doubt point to a small seal on the compartment housing the memory card (the component exploited in Hursti’s study), Black Box Voting has interviewed a former San Diego poll worker, who reported that all that is necessary to dislodge and then reaffix the seal is a small pair of pliers.
IN A NUTSHELL:
- The machines have been demonstrated to be vulnerable to undetected tampering
- The San Diego registrar of voters chose not to take appropriate precautions
- The main tally machine was placed in a location that was impossible for citizens to observe
- Many voting integrity advocates have come to believe that voting machine reform now rivals the urgency of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.
Jim March acted on those beliefs.
* * * * *
If you share the feelings that Jim March has expressed about voting system secrecy, please forward this message to your lists and to online blogs as appropriate. Permission granted to reprint, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org.
* * * *
Update: Background on San Diego -- Mayoral candidate Donna Frye won on WRITE IN votes in November, but was disqualified due to technicalities in California law. She was polling at 48 percent before the election. She needed a hair over 50 percent to win without a runoff. Frye is an outspoken advocate on behalf of election integrity.
Here is what is odd about the results: Monitoring incoming tabulator results, the percentages for all candidates -- even those with just one or two percent of the vote -- remained steady throughout the evening. It is typical for elections results to fluctuate as various demographic areas come in. However, the results -- as posted on the web page of the registrar of elections -- did not appear to fluctuate at all for any candidate. It seemed as though there was a fixed "set point" for the spread.
More study needs to be done. We need the printed GEMS summary reports, each iteration throughout the night. We need to examine the memory cards. We need to examine the chips.
Frye had about 42 percent of the votes, with the next closest candidate at about 26 percent. It will go to a runoff.
Secret vote-counting -- ain't it grand?
|
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 996
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:18 pm: |
|
Odd results: In all iterations, the percentage of results for candidates did not change. The winner needed to achieve over 50 percent. However, as you'll note, the percentages per candidate remained fixed in each iteration throughout the evening -- which is not typical for incoming election returns. The race goes to a runoff.
|
pat_vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: pat_vesely
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Keep us posted! Good luck Jim. |
linda_franz
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: linda_franz
Post Number: 147
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
Maybe there are two catagories of election officials-
The real deal, who care about democracy and citizen participation...
Those who only patronize the citizens of our country by "allowing" them to vote, then telling them to run along now, the counting of the votes is none of your business.
Would that type more appropriately be called an Election Czar?
Would that type also tell us that we could not observe a hand recount? Or that we could observe the recount but not the tallying of the votes recounted?
We are reminded again of Stalin, who knew full well that it matters not who voted or how- what matters is who counts the votes.
Take vote counting away from the people and you have a sham. Voting becomes a sideshow.
People have been slowly weaned off participation. The idea that they want to take back their rights is apparently threatening to some.
Let us know how to help, Jim. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 999
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
I have not heard from Jim yet this morning. About eight hours ago, according to Jim Hamilton, they said they were taking him to jail and he'd be held for about eight hours -- then they'd decide whether to release him on his own recognizance or set bail. We stand ready to help, of course.
In the mean time: The reason Jim did this is not just a problem in San Diego -- what happenened there represents a systemic problem, obstructiveness of election officials and opaque vote-counting procedures, and it is happening all over the U.S.
The best thing we can do in the interim is to make Jim's courage COUNT -- he did this to make the American people aware of how secret elections have become.
LET THE SECRET OUT OF THE BAG. E-mail this story to the media, to reform groups, to civil rights organizations. Get the word out!
-- Bev |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
This just in: Jim Hamilton, who is in San Diego, is arranging the $10,000 bail for Jim. Thanks very much to staunch citizens like Hamilton!
Black Box Voting will make arrangements with Hamilton for this. Right now the objective is to get Jim out of jail, and we very much appreciate the fact that Hamilton has Jim's back on this.
-- Bev |
votes_with_paper
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: votes_with_paper
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
BBV admin
What happened with the .gbf file request? That's big.
Mr. March inspired me to take the time to send the announcement to the LA Times and NY Times. Most online newspapers have a citydesk email contact -- took 2 minutes for each. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
The .gbf files have already been released in other jurisdictions. However, it remains to be seen whether San Diego will part with theirs.
This is getting more interesting. Black Box Voting very much needs the original "summary reports" -- EVERY iteration, which they were running every five minutes. The pattern on the summary reports appears not to conform with what would normally be expected, but we need the original data to confirm this. |
votes_with_paper
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: votes_with_paper
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
also sent story to the NZ independent news and the San Jose Mercury news....
Is Jim March from the Seattle area?
Jim March is from Sacramento. |
citizen_sane
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: citizen_sane
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Well, we very much are in an activist mode--like the 60s. It's time to protest and cause our civil servants (they are paid with our tax dollars!) some uncomfortable-ness. Might I suggest picketing outside the registrars' home? Let's embarass this person in front of his neighbors. Let's confront his wife at the hair dresser why her husband isn't allowing the will of the people to be verified. Let's make any public appearance by this individual a constant confrontation (but a nice one).
When you are servant of the people, you need to serve THEM! |
mymarkx
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: mymarkx
Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
I'm in San Diego and was also concerned about how the votes never fluctuated.
What was needed was to keep Frye below 50%, but not close enough to warrant a recount.
I hope Bev and Jim win a few more millions from San Diego on this one. As bad as this city's financial problems are, they won't be solved until we get honest elections and can elect honest candidates. |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 83
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
May I suggest requesting both the gbf files AND the mdb files?
The gbf files are compacted to remove any entries marked for deletion, while the mdb files still have the entries marked for deletion.
HG |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 39
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
But Donna Frye didn't really "win"} yet:
SAN DIEGO - Voters Tuesday determined that Councilwoman Donna Frye, a Democrat, environmental activist and surf shop owner, will face former Police Chief Jerry Sanders in a mayoral runoff election this fall.
With all the votes counted in the special election, Frye had 43% of the votes, and Sanders was second with 27%, ahead of business owner Steve Francis with 24%.
Because she received less than 50% of the votes, Frye must now face Sanders in a Nov. 8 runoff.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sdmayor27jul27,0,564557.story?page=1&col l=la-home-headlines
I sent her a copy of your story, as well as to the LA Times, the UCSD Guardian, SD Union Tribune, SD News, and several other San Diego rags.
If anyone lives in the San Diego area, please contact your representative and tell them this an affront to every citizen's right to watch the votes get counted. Legislators ignore anyone who does not live in their district.
Assembly Member Lori Saldaña
76th Assembly District
1557 Columbia Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 645-3090
Assembly Member George A. Plescia
75th Assembly District
District Address
9909 Mira Mesa Boulevard Suite 130
San Diego, CA 92131
(858) 689-6290
Sen Bill Morrow
Carlsbad
2755 Jefferson St., #101
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 434-7930
Fax: (760) 434-8223
San Juan Capistrano
27126-A Paseo Espada, #1621
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92765
Phone: (949) 489-9838
Fax: (949) 489-8354
Even if you don't live in San Diego, bring your concerns to your own representatives. Send your Senator, Assemblyperson, the Secretary of State and the CA Attorney General a letter or a fax with a copy of Bev's article about Jim's arrest and let them know you think it's outrageous. Send them a copy of the BBV Press Release about the BBV Technical Report and tell them you are concerned with the security and integrity of electronic voting systems.
The Voters Fraud Handbook* states:
Q: I don't trust computers. Never have, and never will. I would like to watch how ballots get counted on election night to see with my own eyes how it works. Is this process open to the public?
A: Yes, the entire process, from the opening of absentee ballot envelopes to the counting of ballots on election night is open to the public. (EC §15004, 15104) Contact your local election official for more information on observing the process on election night. Additionally, to test the accuracy of the counting machines, prior to the official certification of election results, each county election official must conduct a public manual recount of the ballots cast in one percent of the precincts, the ballots counted are chosen at random by each election official. (EC §15360)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/shelleyvfph2003.pdf
The Secretary of State's Official Canvas of the Vote page states:
"The California Elections Code requires that the official canvass begin no later than the Thursday following the election, that it be open to the public, and that it continue daily (Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excepted) for not less than six hours each day until completed."
The Election Code sections pertaining to watching the vote count say:
15204. All proceedings at the central counting place, or counting places, if applicable, shall be open to the view of the public but no person, except one employed and designated for the purpose by the elections official or his or her authorized deputy, shall touch any ballot container. Access to the area where electronic data processing equipment is being operated may be restricted to those persons authorized by the elections official.
15272. The count shall be public and shall be continued without adjournment until completed and the result is declared. During the reading and tallying, the ballot read and the tally sheet kept shall be within the clear view of watchers.
This language is contradictory, ambiguous, and is against the spirit of the California Constitution laws protecting voters' rights, given that:
1) Electronic voting systems are most at risk for election fraud at the point in which the votes are tabulated
2) Electronic voting systems use electronic data processing equipment to tabulate the votes
3) There are no standards or reasons for access restriction and the vague wording means any Election Official can restrict everyone's access to any area with a computer, a PDA, or someone playing with their GameBoy with no explanation
4) Election officials who restrict access are effectively denying the public's right to view the vote count, making the voting process less secure, creating public mistrust, and bringing the integrity of the election in that district, along with the integrity of precinct board and their own personal integrity, into question.
5) The felony arrest of voting rights advocate, Jim March, for attempting to exercise his rights under Election Code 15204 and 15272 proves that the California Secretary of State's current Election Codes no longer protects the public's right to view vote counts done on voting systems proven to be insecure and open to vote manipulations. Incredibly, it has, by conferring the power to restrict public access to election officials, created felony class violations designed to intimidate, thwart, mute, discourage and criminally label any law-abiding California citizen who attempts to do so.
Tell your representatives you are planning on watching the vote counts in the next election and you want their personal assurances that you will not be arrested, charged with a felony, strip-searched, forced to submit your DNA like a dangerous criminal, and put at risk of losing your job, your reputation and, ironically, your right to vote until released from Dept. of Corrections supervision, merely for exercising your constitutional right to watch the votes get counted. Then ask them to let you know what steps they plan to take in order to protect your rights and secure your vote in the coming California (or your state's) election. Send a copy to your local newspaper.
Get the names and contact info for California legislators at:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/updatemap.htm
Get the names and contact info for your representatives in any state by inputting your zip code at:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/?lvl=L
Instantly send letters to local media by inputting your zip code at:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/
First, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. Now, voting rights and election integrity advocate, Jim March. Apparently anyone interested in ensuring honest elections in California is a target of those benefiting from ensuring they are open to election fraud.
We may be facing an uphill battle, but if we don't object to this alarming and fore-telling event, it will definitely be all downhill from this point forward.
Karla
*The Election Code citations in the excerpt taken from the Voter Fraud Handbook, don't really pertain to public viewing of election night vote counts. 15004 deals with Party-Affiliated Computer Specialists and 15104 deals with viewing absentee vote counts, which are done up to a week in advance.
15004. The county central committee of each qualified political party may employ, and may have present at the central counting place or places, not more than two qualified data processing specialists or engineers to check and review the preparation and operation of the tabulating devices, their programming and testing, and have the
specialists or engineers in attendance at any or all phases of the election.
15104. (a) The processing of absentee ballot return envelopes, and the processing and counting of absentee ballots shall be open to the public, both prior to and after the election. |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 40
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Geez! Sorry, I've been working on my post for a couple hours and now I see, I'm way behind the times and Donna Frye's run-off scoop is old news. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
re: "I'm in San Diego and was also concerned about how the votes never fluctuated. What was needed was to keep Frye below 50%, but not close enough to warrant a recount."
Thank you. I'm talking to others who noticed the same thing, who said it stuck out like a sore thumb. We really, REALLY need to get the opportunity to bring in an independent expert on this. -- Bev |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 77
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
I have gone exhaustively thru the CA Election Code AND the CA Code of Regulations and the ONLY reference to 'interference with an election official' is this:
18577. Any person having charge of a completed absent voter ballot
who willfully interferes or causes interference with its return to the local elections official having jurisdiction over the election is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both.
Kathleen and Bev -via email- know what other actions I have taken. This is outrageous, especially given that election workers opened the door for Jim.
What is the charge exactly? $10K seems real high for something that is neither in the Elections Code or CCR's. |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 78
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
I've now gone through the San Diego Municipal Code and also find nothing specifically about 'interfering with an election official'.
The only thing I find is an EXEMPTION FROM Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(2) "Where their application would result in an interference with or inhibition of peaceful picketing directed toward the business establishment, lawful labor activities, or peaceful political activities" |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 79
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Channel 10 news in SD last night interviewed the third place finisher before the full results were in (Steve Francis) and he stated he was 'waiting for the returns from the more conservative districts' before writing off his chances to come in second. He TOO was expecting a demographic change to show up. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Just spoke with the formidable Jody Holder, an outstanding researcher. Seven days before the election, an "election observation plan" is supposed to be filed with the secretary of state. We need that document. -- Bev |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 41
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
18501. Any public official who knowingly iolates any of the provisions of this chapter, and thereby aids in any way the illegal casting or attempting to cast a vote, or who connives to nullify any of the provisions of this chapter in order that fraud may be perpetrated, shall forever be disqualified from holding office in
this state and upon conviction shall be sentenced to a state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
18502. Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers holding an election or conducting a canvass, or with the voters
lawfully exercising their rights of voting at an election, as to prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years. |
votes_with_paper
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: votes_with_paper
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
I hope that San Diego's "King" Stahlman bail bonds can come through for Mr. March.
Questions:
Who, precisely, is Mikel Haas, the registrar?
Who ordered the arrest?
I'm in San Diego.
Free Jim March! |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 80
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
This may be what Jim is charged under:
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:
(a) Tampers with, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with,the correct operation of, or willfully damages in order to prevent the use of, any voting machine, voting device, voting system, vote tabulating device, or ballot tally software program source codes.
(b) Interferes or attempts to interfere with the secrecy of voting or ballot tally software program source codes.
(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.
(d) Willfully substitutes or attempts to substitute forged or counterfeit ballot tally software program source codes.
Tough to get a conviction under (a)if the intent was simply to turn the machine so that the screen could be seen. It's the 'attempts to interfere with' that's problematical;given Jim's request and lack of response, it sounds like he got set up. |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 465
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
I gathered his intent was to see the screen--not to touch it himself. We'll have to hear more about this.
Seems to me that under the regs 18501 & 18502 that Karla quoted above it's the election official(s) who should be arrested. |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 84
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
The charge was under 18502
http://www.sdsheriff.net/wij/wijDetail.aspx?BookNum=5132612
Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers holding an election or conducting a canvass,... as to prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
Interference with an election official is not in and of itself a crime unless it prevents the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted. Otherwise there would be no need in law to have the clarificaton included in the statute.
The question that needs to be asked is 'In what manner did Mr. March's actions prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted?
My understanding is that his actions were likely intended to ensure the election was being fairly held and lawfully conducted, not to prevent it.
I wonder if they can they spell 'wrongful arrest' or trumped-up charge?
I guess I shoulda been a lawyer.
HG
(Message edited by harmonyguy on July 27, 2005) |
rigel99
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: rigel99
Post Number: 13
Registered: 02-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
What can we do Bev? Jim is a good guy, we all want to help get him out of jail... how can we help??? is it time to get a rally outside his jail.... what??? I'll hop a plane to help Jim, you say when, Bev.. I'm getting damn sick of this..... they're starting to put us in jail and that pisses me off!!! Let us know how we can help.....
Make the media aware of this. Make as many citizens as possible aware of this. We are already receiving reports from around the country, from others who were prohibited from watching the tabulator. What Jim March did is shine sunlight on a systemic problem that is occurring nationwide. -- Thanks, Bev |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
ARREST REPORT:
WHO IS IN JAIL - INMATE DETAIL
Information is current as of last update: 07/27/2005 10:59:46 AM
PERSONAL
Last: MARCH
First: JAMES
Middle:
Sex: M
Date of Birth: 04/01/1966
Age: 39
Height: 6' 04"
Weight: 280 lbs.
Race: W
Eyes: HAZ
Hair: BRO
ARRESTS: 1
Arrest Nbr: 1
Agency: San Diego Sheriff Office
Location:
Hold Codes:
Bail Amount: $10,000.00
Facility: San Diego Central Jail
Area/HU/Cell: 8/C/06
Booking Date: 07/27/2005
Booking Time: 01:03:00
Booking Nbr: 5132612
CHARGES
Arrest Charge Nbr Bail Flag Bail Amount Description Code Statute
1 1 Y $10,000.00 INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTION OFF 18502 EL
COURT (Court Names and Addresses)
Appearance Destination Court Date Time
1 SDF 08/03/2005 13:30:00
http://www.sdsheriff.net/wij/wijDetail.aspx?BookNum=5132612 |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 81
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Given that Jim was let into the room by election(ROV) workers, this really is just a power play by Haas.
"Now county election officials have mounted their latest lobbying effort - to overturn Shelley's mandate for a voter-verified paper trail. There is something troubling about county election officials having a lobbying agenda focused on elections policy rather than operations efficiency. They are supposed to implement the laws, not decide which ones to ignore."
from http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2281 |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 85
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
In order for a conviction on this charge, (and for that matter, in order for there to be sufficient belief or suspicion to lay the charge,) doesn't that by its very definition mean that the profferor of the charge has reasonable belief or suspicion that the election was unfairly held and unlawfully conducted?
If the charge was laid by the police/prosecutor/county attorney then the police/prosecutor/county attorney must reasonably suspect that the election was unfairly held and unlawfully conducted?
Of course, they will need to investigate what caused the election to be unfairly held and unlawfully conducted, which means that all the documents, disks, programs and files etc relating to the election will need to be preserved and protected as evidence. Any erasing of memory cards, compacting of original files, etc would be destruction of evidence.
If, on the otherhand, the election is declared to be fairly and lawfully conducted, then Mr. March simply cannot be convicted of causing otherwise. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
There is no way -- NO WAY -- that this will be allowed to enter any phase that brings it remotely close to anything resembling discovery.
As they have done with many other arrests of activists, they will probably dismiss the charges.
Note that he will have a court appearance on Aug. 3. If the state does not dismiss the charges, this may be an advantage in that we can then obtain a number of informative documents while a defense is prepared.
-- Bev |
harmonyguy
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: harmonyguy
Post Number: 86
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
... this may be an advantage in that we can then obtain a number of informative documents while a defense is prepared.
You read my mind. |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 82
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
From the 'Procedures' document associated with the certification of the AccuVote-OS firmware 1.96:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/procedures_items_5c.pdf
1.2.42.1 Logic and Accuracy Tests
Logic and Accuracy (L&A) tests verify that the vote tallying hardware, firmware and election
definitions are operating correctly. Logic and Accuracy testing consists of entering a known
number of ballots with a known number of voted response positions into the AccuVote-OS.
Logic and Accuracy tests must be run before processing official ballots for an election. The “testdeck” ballots have predetermined totals for all contests on the ballot.
Each candidate in the contest is assigned a vote count total.
The output from the logic and accuracy test can be in the form of a press release bulletin, signed
by the Logic and Accuracy Board and the Election Official or her/his designees prior to
certification and submission of vote tally programs and files to the Secretary of State not less than seven days before the election.
1.2.42.2 System Proofing
System proofing verifies that all materials, files, and programs for an election are correctly
prepared. This proofing is normally done in approximately two weeks, during the period from 60
(sixty) days to 7 (seven) days prior to Election Day. L&A tests are included in system proofing, as
they verify ballot printing, ballot ID’s and races/candidates against the information loaded onto the Memory Card profiles.
When used in an election, the accumulation and reporting components of GEMS software are
considered as an integral part of the overall system, and are subject to testing of the summary
totals accumulation process via serial and modem connections, reporting systems, export
Page
July 23, 2004
11
programs for Secretary of State reporting, as is required to ensure that all major areas of the
system are functional and tested for accuracy.
2.5 Retention of Test Materials and Results
The successful logic and accuracy tests, conducted at the time of certification (or recertification, if necessary) to the Secretary of State, storage logs or records, if any, and balancing reports, if any,shall be retained as long as the ballots are kept for the election. The official logic test ballot cards used for balancing prior to and upon completion of processing official ballots shall also be kept for as long as the ballots are kept. Back-up decks and other test decks may be destroyed or used to train operators for other elections. Memory Cards need not be retained.
2.6 Logic and Accuracy Board
The Election Official shall establish a Logic and Accuracy Board to complete certification of
testing. Not later than seven days before each statewide election, the Secretary of State must
receive a copy of the Logic and Accuracy Board’s certification. For local and district elections, the Logic and Accuracy Board members shall submit their copy of the Logic and Accuracy Board’s
certification to the local Election Official conducting the election.
7.6.3 After the memory card is installed, the security bar for the slot shall be placed over the
card in its slot and fastened with a numbered wire seal such as those used to secure the
ballot box. The number of the seal shall be recorded in the security log.
8.3 Election Observer Panel
All procedures prescribed in this Manual shall be carried out in full view of the public insofar as
feasible. In addition, the responsible elections official shall devise a plan, subject to the approval of the Voting Systems Panel, whereby all critical procedures of the vote tallying process described in this Manual are open to observation by an Election Observer Panel. Representatives of the qualified political parties and representatives of the news media shall be among those invited to serve on this Panel and shall be given the opportunity to observe that the correct procedures have been followed in the receiving, processing, and tallying of all the voted ballots. The Election Official shall appoint an Election Observer Panel; failure of any or all invited parties to participate on the Panel shall not stop procedures from continuing as otherwise required by law.
I asked the head of the SD Democratic Party Committee to let me be the 'observer' for them and was referred to a person who heads a subcommittee of the 'Committee' who worried about 'duplication of election reform effort'
Anyway, it would be good to know who the LandA panel consisted of and whether the tests were actually run(might be cause of lack of precinct 'diversity'). And I never saw any public notice of the results. BUT ,since this was a local,special election, it looks like all that was required is to sign a statement to Haas that such had been done.
Of course, the effective date for the procedures is null on the document.
And given that the election was 'local,special' the 'rules of the game' are different than for Statewide or Federal elections. |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 42
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
9) (A) You have the right to ask questions about election procedures and observe the elections process.
(B) You have the right to ask questions of the precinct board and election officials regarding election procedures and to receive an answer or be directed to the appropriate official for an answer. However, if persistent questioning disrupts the execution of their duties, the board or election officials may discontinue responding to questions.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&fil e=2300
From the Voter Fraud Handbook:
Q: With all those computer hackers out there breaking into the Pentagon, how can I be sure that no one is tinkering with the computer programs that count the ballots on election night?
A: The Secretary of State certifies all voting systems. Each county, before and after counting ballots, must run a number of pre-marked ballots, or “test deck”, through the computer as part of a legally required test, known as the “Logic and Accuracy” check. The test deck has a known number of votes for candidates, and the computer output must match that exactly. In addition, each county must file their Logic and Accuracy tapes with the Secretary of State, as well as escrow a copy of their software. These safeguards were designed to test the system before the actual counting of the real ballots on Election Day.
Q: I wanted to stay after the polls closed at 8:00 p.m. to see for myself that the ballot box was sealed and there was no funny business going on at my precinct. However, one of the poll workers told me that I had to leave when the polling place closed. I thought I could stay and watch the process of reconciling the votes. Can I?
A: Yes, you can stay after the polls close to watch the reconciliation process. In most counties, the raw number of ballots cast is counted at the precinct. The actual votes cast are counted at a central receiving area, usually the county election office. You are welcome to watch ballot counting at either location.
15000. No later than seven days prior to any election conducted pursuant to this code, the elections official shall conduct a test or series of tests to ensure that every device used to tabulate ballots accurately records each vote. The exact methods employed in this test shall conform to the voting procedures for the specific voting systems, as adopted by the Secretary of State.
15001. (a) A copy of each election computer vote count program for a statewide election or state special election to fill vacancies shall be deposited with the Secretary of State. The copy of the election computer vote count program shall be received by the Secretary of State no later than 5 p.m. on the seventh day before the election.
(b) If the election computer vote count program is modified or altered after the submission specified in subdivision (a), the elections official immediately shall deposit the subsequent program no later than 12 p.m. on the day of the election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall hold the deposited programs for a period of not less than six months, at which time the program shall be returned to the elections official.
(1) The elections official shall preserve the returned program for a period of 16 months.
(2) The programs deposited in accordance with this section shall be used only for a recanvass of the vote, an official recount, court action, or for logic and accuracy tests required by the Secretary of State.
(3) Any tape, diskette, cartridge, or other magnetic or electronic storage medium containing the vote count program submitted pursuant to this section shall be maintained by the Secretary of State in a secure location when not in use for an official purpose specified in paragraph (2).
(d) The Secretary of State may, by mandamus or other appropriate proceeding, require and compel the county elections officials to submit the computer vote count program specified in subdivision (a). Venue for a proceeding under this section shall be exclusively in Sacramento County.
15003. Elections officials shall adopt semifinal official and official canvass procedures to conform to the applicable voting system procedures that have been approved by the Secretary of State. These procedures shall be available for public inspection no later than 29 days before each election.
15004. The county central committee of each qualified political party may employ, and may have present at the central counting place or places, not more than two qualified data processing specialists or engineers to check and review the preparation and operation of the tabulating devices, their programming and testing, and have the specialists or engineers in attendance at any or all phases of the election.
(Why can’t “the public interest” have representatives in attendance, too?)
15620. Following completion of the official canvass, any voter may, within five days thereafter, file with the elections official responsible for conducting an election in the county wherein the recount is sought a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any office, for slates of presidential electors, or for or against any measure, provided the office, slate, or measure is not voted on statewide. The request shall specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure (affirmative or negative) it is filed.
If an election is conducted in more than one county, the request for the recount may be filed with the elections official of, and the recount conducted within, any or all of the affected counties.
For the purposes of this section "completion of the canvass" shall be presumed to be that time when the elections official signs the certified statement of the results of the election except that, in the case of a city election, if a city council canvasses the returns itself and does not order the elections official to conduct the canvass as permitted by Section 10263, "completion of the canvass" shall be presumed to be that time when the governing body declares the persons elected or the measures approved or defeated.
Read the rest of this document at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=15001-16000&fil e=15620-15634
Karla |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 83
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Hi Karla; please note the difference between the procedures associated with the 'certification' and the Election Code. The procedures for the 'cert':"Representatives of the qualified political parties and representatives of the news media shall be among those invited to serve on this Panel and shall be given the opportunity to observe that the correct procedures have been followed in the receiving, processing, and tallying of all the voted ballots."
My guess is that by 'among' it is meant a friend of a County Supervisor as that's what happened in 2001 when SD County redistricted.
Also note that most of the EC pertains to STATEWIDE or Federal Elections. Local or District elections have different rules.
Personally, I think it's the fault of the major political parties that the Registrars are given so much free hand. AND, you 'got to know the rules' before you can challenge them. |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 85
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Given all the San Diego people who have been posting here, why don't we all meet up and co-ordinate/leverage ourselves? I can be reached at urrightto@cox.net. |
| | |
