SOURCE: Monadnock Ledger

Voters: Count ballots by hand; Petition article to prohibit computerized vote counting passes
By Nick Martin
Monadnock Ledger-Transcript

LYNDEBOROUGH — By approving a petition warrant article at Saturday’s Town Meeting, Lyndeborough voters made their town perhaps the first in the nation to formally prohibit computerized vote counting and ensure the tradition of hand counting paper ballots.

Voters approved the petition article that “prohibits vote counting concealed from human eye by method of computers.” Resident Nancy Tobi, who sponsored the petition article, said she brought the article to the town to ensure Lyndeborough would continue to count its ballots by hand, as it has for more than 200 years.



“I know that the town of Lyndeborough loves its elections and is very community oriented. I thought it would be good to be proactive and protect this piece of democracy we have in New Hampshire,” Tobi said Tuesday.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

Any citizen in New Hampshire can bring a petition article to their Town Warrant by securing the signatures of at least 25 registered voters. The article is then added to the Town Warrant to be voted on in Town meeting. Today, the citizens of Lyndeborough resoundingly approved enacting into the town's laws the following warrant article regarding the counting of votes. I hope that NH citizens all around the state will enact the same law in their town at next year's Town Meetings.

Here is the petition citizens signed to add the article below regarding the counting of votes to the Town Warrant:

To see if the Town of Lyndeborough will prohibit vote counting concealed from the human eye by method of computers or otherwise, and require that all methods used for sorting and counting the votes in an election be publicly observable for full citizen oversight of the entire voting system (with the exception of the voter’s casting of the secret ballot).

OpEdNews

SOURCE: OpEdNews

---

March 12, 2010 By Lani Massey Brown

If you've been following recent news reports concerning Elections Systems & Software, Inc.'s monopoly of America's voting process, you know ES&S will now be required to sell the Premier Systems/Diebold assets they acquired last year, pending approval by a federal judge. (See Brad Friedman's DOJ TO REQUIRE ES&S TO SELL OFF ASSETS FROM DIEBOLD MERGER CITING ANTI-TRUST CONCERNS and DOJ: Voting machine maker must sell some assets, Pete Yost, Associated Press.)

Have we dodged a bullet on that one? Maybe. The block to ES&S's nationwide election grab is one major victory for all Americans. It does restrict the propagation of a host of voting errors that have long afflicted ES&S voting systems.

However in no way does this ensure honest and accurate elections. It simply restricts ES&S's influence from 70% of Americans to 50+% of Americans. It does nothing to protect your vote from intentional or unintentional mishap. Particularly since the ES&S solution controls each election from beginning to end with little or no viable external checks and balances to keep the results honest: ES&S manufactures the machines, outlines the testing process, produces the test data, manages the voting process, tallies the votes, pronounces the winner, then produces the reports to declare the election valid.

Here's a quick analysis of the possible impact of the USDOJ antitrust decision:

The acquisition by ES&S of Diebold's Premier Election Solutions has been (supposedly) nixed by the US Department of Justice on antitrust grounds.

However, the DOJ erred by not acting promptly to protect the Premier Elections operation from being gutted by ES&S.

The Dept. of Justice claims that the deal flew under the radar so they couldn't stop the pillaging of Premier in time. That's not the case. The records will show that the Dept. of Justice had received -- and acknowledged -- formal complaints in time to put a protective halt on the mass firings of Premier employees.

HERE'S WHY THIS ERROR IS SO SIGNIFICANT:

The USDOJ failed to act to protect the assets of Diebold's Premier Elections unit, resulting in the problem that they now cannot mandate full divestiture of Premier by ES&S, and instead have ordered ES&S to remove itself from Premier's current locations only partially -- or perhaps, not at all.

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, March 8, 2010

Justice Department Requires Key Divestiture in Election Systems & Software/Premier Election Solutions Merger

Divestiture Will Restore Competition in Voting Equipment Systems, Nine State Attorneys General Join in Department’s Resolution

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it will require Election Systems & Software (ES&S) to divest voting equipment systems assets it purchased in September 2009 from Premier Election Solutions Inc. in order to restore competition. The assets to be divested include the means to produce all versions of Premier’s hardware, software and firmware used to record, tabulate, transmit or report votes, including the Assure 1.2 system, and a license to better serve disabled voters. The department said that today’s settlement will restore competition in voting equipment systems in the United States and that, without the divestiture, the acquisition would result in higher prices, lower quality and a reduced incentive to innovate.

SOURCE: WSJ

Voting-Machine Deal to Be Cleared by U.S.

By THOMAS CATAN

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department is poised to allow the merger of the U.S.'s two largest makers of voting machines, but the combined company will be required to divest a key electronic voting system, said people familiar with the matter.

In September, closely held Election Systems & Software Inc. agreed to buy No. 2 voting-machine manufacturer Premier Election Solutions Inc., a money-losing unit ofDiebold Inc.

The deal, which was valued at $5 million, was too small to trigger a mandatory federal antitrust review. But it generated a wave of opposition from election officials and others worried the deal would deprive voting precincts of choice and leave the country's election system more vulnerable to failures.

Following months of negotiations, the Justice Department and ES&S are near agreement on a settlement that would involve the company selling Premier's newest voting system—called Assure 1.2—to a competitor, most likely Hart InterCivic Inc., said people familiar with the matter.

SOURCE: Politico

ACORN cleared in Brooklyn: 'No criminality'

Kings County, New York District Attorney Joe Hynes put out a statement just now:

On Sept. 15, 2009, my office began an investigation into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees. The three had been secretly videotaped by two people posing as a pimp and prostitute, who came to ACORN’S Brooklyn office, seeking advice about how to purchase a house with money generated by their ‘business.’ The ‘couple’ later made the recording public. That investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found.

SOURCE: BRAD BLOG

Federal Trial Witness: Kentucky Election Officials Used E-Voting Machines to Flip Votes

Republican official says she was asked to change party affiliation to serve as 'Democratic' precinct official...

Posted By Brad Friedman On 2nd March 2010 @ 14:56

Meanwhile, back in Clay County, Kentucky, where election officials (including the county clerk, a district court judge, and the school superintendent) were arrested last year (1), and are now on trial, accused of having "fix(ed) elections for decades," (2) a "precinct worker testified...that top election officers in the county taught her how to change people's choices on voting machines to steal votes in the May 2006 primary." The vote stealing was accomplished on ES&S touch-screen electronic voting machines, without the knowledge of legitimate voters, after they'd left the booth thinking they had cast their votes.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

February 23, 2010 By Joan Brunwasser

More Ellsberg: The Pentagon Papers and John Dean, Then and Now

My guest today is "the most dangerous man* in America" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. When you released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, you knew that you could be facing life in prison. Luckily, that turned out not to be the case. But, if you were to have done comparable actions since the passage of the Patriot Act, they would have tossed you in prison and thrown away the key. That's a sobering, concrete example of where we are almost forty years later. Do you ever think about that?

Good question. Actually, although (unknown to me and almost everyone else) the prior law was on my side in 1971-73, I came pretty close to spending 115 years in prison then. With good behavior, I would have gotten out (after 35 years) in 2008. It took a lot of luck, and a handful of individuals who told the truth (John Dean about the burglary, someone in the FBI about the electronic overhearing) to overcome the attempts of the president to bribe my judge with the directorship of the FBI.

And even before the Patriot Act, the trend of legal opinions--the terrible judgments in the Samuel Loring Morison case in 1984, an increasing disregard of legislative history which had weighed against using the Espionage Act as an Official Secrets Act--was against the chances for a future leaker of classified information. The Patriot Act itself didn't affect this situation that much. It doesn't include an Official Secrets Act--almost by oversight--though another 9-11 could almost surely get us one, even from Obama.

However, the Patriot Act and related legislation do have the effect of legalizing most of the actual crimes against me by Nixon. Sneak-and-peek entries and burglaries of a doctor's office, in search of information to use against a "terrorist suspect"? (i.e., someone like me who opposes and resists a president's terrorism). Legal, now. Warrantless wiretaps? Legal. Use of CIA against an American citizen? Legal.

SOURCE: - The BRAD BLOG - http://www.bradblog.com -

Breitbart Lied About ACORN 'Pimp' Videos When Selling Story in His Own Washington Times Column - Falsely asserted O'Keefe 'dressed as pimp' while 'asking for, getting help for illegal activities'; Still stands behind fabricated claim

Media Matters details mainstream outlets that took bait, fell for Breitbart/O'Keefe's sensationalized fiction...

Posted By Brad Friedman On 17th February 2010 @ 17:46

As mentioned yesterday (1), on Monday night, wingnut propagandist Andrew Breitbart tweeted (2) to me...

andrewbreitbart (3) | @TheBradBlog (4) U can lie that i lied until youre blue in face. ive told truth every step of way. U are propagandist. keep repeating the lies.

...in reply to The BRAD BLOG's (5) recent series of articles highlighting, among other things, how he lied, along with his accused federal felon (6) employee (7) James O'Keefe, in order to sell their phony ACORN hit videos to gullible media --- and how the New York Times, and so many others, fell for it hook, line, and not-yet-retracted sinker (8).

Other nations (Germany, Ireland, Netherlands) have outlawed concealed vote counting by computers. But New Hampshire officials, despite knowing full well the risks from using e-voting, despite knowing full well that e-voting conceals the vote count from the public - in contradiction to the NH Constitutional mandate to count votes "in open meeting", continue to lead us down this path. Witness this report from NH's evoting committee. In fact, the very mission of New Hampshire's committee was to cement e-voting into our elections. With the proliferation of video evidence questioning the veracity of NH elections, The NH Department of State's persistent support for concealed vote counting puts at risk NH's First in the Nation status.

SOURCE: Dutchnews.com

How does the system work?

There are local elections in the Netherlands every four years. If you are entitled to vote, you should get a ballot card from your local council a few weeks before the election. You must take this with you to your local polling station. If you don't get a card, contact your local town hall.

Polling stations are open from 7.30 to 21.00 hours.

When you present your voting card, you will be given a large piece of paper listing all the political parties running in the election and all the candidates on their electoral list.

The candidates are listed in priority order with the party's favourite at the top of the list. You can vote for anyone you like. Candidates lower down the list get can still get a seat on the council if they get a lot of votes.

You vote by filling in the box next to the name of your chosen candidate with a red pencil. (Voting computers have been abandoned because they are not fraud-proof).

If you haven't already been alerted, the Supreme Court has inadvertently created a brief but important opportunity.

Background: Key legislation to help curb global warming was passed in the House and is now bottled up in the Senate under the thumbs of big money special interest lobbies. We have seen all too clearly what such lobbies are doing to block or emasculate health care legislation and much environmental and financial reform.

Please consider phoning the above title message to your Senators and also relaying it to friends all over the country. Anyone need only to call the Capital Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 or click congress.org , where their Zip Code gives names and phone connections to their own two Senators and House Member, i.e. NH Senators Gregg Judd, 202-224-3324 or 603-225-7115 and Jeanne Shaheen, 202-224-2841 or 603-647-7500. Night or weekend recorded messages are fine and convenient.

The following alert to me from Common Cause tells more.

Cheers!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Florida Supreme Court has just ruled in the appeal of Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, et. al., v Browning et.al.
They ruled that the major portions of our county charter amendment, Parts a and b, requiring paper ballots and mandatory, random audits (spot checks) of machine counts are constitutional.

Part c (requiring under certain circumstances that all ballots be audited prior to certifying elections) was ruled unconstitutional, but the Court severed part c from the law. Parts a (paper ballots) and b (mandatory spot audits) remain in the law and are valid. We knew that the ruling on part c was a possibility, but are very pleased with the positive rulings for paper ballots and mandatory audits.

The ruling that Florida law does not preempt home rule charter counties from adding protections for voters is a huge success. We still look forward to the day when the Florida legislature enacts a law similar to part c of our charter amendment which requires an audit of all ballots prior to certification if it appears that the machines may be malfunctioning.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

---

February 4, 2010, BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris Tackles the Holt Bill, Part Two, By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome back for the second half of my interview with BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris. If people in the EI Election Integrity movement have serious reservations about the Holt Bill, Bev, why don't you just talk with Rep. Holt and give him your input? Who knows more about this than the actual people who have been in the trenches all these years?

Mr. Holt doesn't have the slightest interest in anything I have to say -- or anyone else advocating for restoration of public right to see and authenticate all steps in our own elections. What we are looking for won't line the pockets of the e-voting industry (and all the related little support industries that have developed). In fact, the kinds of solutions that will move us towards restoration of public elections:

SOURCE: OpEdNews

February 3, 2010, BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris Tackles the Holt Bill, By Joan Brunwasser

Bev Harris is an investigative journalist and founder of non-partisan, election watchdog BlackBoxVoting.org. Welcome back to OpEdNews, Bev. The Election Integrity (EI) community is once more abuzz regarding Rep. Holt's proposed election legislation, the "Voter Confidence Act." Why is this such a constant lightning rod for people who care about election integrity?

The Holt Bill has literally split the election reform community into two camps, and that may turn out to be a good thing. On the one side are those of us who see current US election processes as a violation of human rights. On the other side are advocates willing to forego the right to public elections if they can just tweak the way concealed election processes are administered. I say this could turn out to be a good thing, because it forces us to articulate the end goal.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

ebruary 1, 2010

Roger Shuler on Recent Supreme Court Decision

By Joan Brunwasser

Roger Shuler is an Alabama journalist and The Legal Schnauzer blogger. Welcome back to OpEdNews. The big news of late is the recent Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate campaign contributions. Everyone feels strongly about it. How about you, Roger?

My primary interest is how it possibly reflects on the apparent political prosecutions of the George W. Bush Justice Department. In the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, Minor's attorneys have already raised the Citizens United v. FEC ruling in their motion for reconsideration with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.All sidesseem to agree that a quid pro quo--something for something deal--remains illegal. But Minor's attorneys argue that there was no quid pro quo in his case, and the jury instruction did not require one. Therefore, based on Citizens United, the prosecution and conviction that Minor faced was aviolation of his First Amendment rights.

SOURCECare2.com

A Washington-based PR firm is running for Congress. Not supporting a candidate, but running as a candidate, to demonstrate the outrageous nature of last week's Supreme Court decision that treats political campaign spending by corporations as free speech.

In a satirical move by polished pros, PR firm Murray Hill has launched its election campaign with all the tools of a "regular' campaign, including a website and an "inspiring" election ad: