Please forward this terrific email (below) from New Jersey election
activists. They detail the federal HAVA requirements, for the disabled,
and for error rates that Diebold's (& also Sequoia's) DRE voting
machines do not meet. (Written handouts on HAVA requirements that
Diebold DREs does "not" meet, while the AutoMARK does, are also
available on both Verifiedvoting.org & Votersunite.org, or by reading
HAVA.)
Utah's election officials ignore the consistent overwhelming written and
verbal advice given them by Utah's computer professionals, and the
plethera of mainstream news articles on the flaws of Diebold since March
2003. I am very curious to know what motivates Utah election officials
to purchase the most expensive, most flawed voting system in America, in
the face of all the facts? Were they bought off, are they hopelessly
ignorant (that would be difficult to imagine after all the input &
news), or are they planning to rig our elections because any computer
novice can tamper with election results in a few seconds without leaving
a trace with Diebold's central tabulators which would be located in
Utah's county election offices?
If it is any consolation, suing the Utah election office ought to be
easy for any patriotic Utah lawyer since they are purchasing systems
which they certainly must know, if they are doing their jobs at all, are
not certified to follow the HAVA laws.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Certification issues regarding HAVA section 301
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:25:53 -0400
From: R. Janow <janow@worldnet.att.net >
Reply-To: <janow@worldnet.att.net >
To: <kathy@uscountvotes.org >
Dear Kathy
I noticed your name in an article (
_
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2901000_ from the Salt
Lake Tribune that a friend forwarded to me about your work in Utah on
voting machines.
I may have something that can help.
I've been working with a group here in Northern N. J. called
"Essex Country Task Force for Voting Rights". We have a similar
perhaps smaller scale problem with respect to impending purchases
of the Sequoia Advantage voting machine. There is also an existing NJ
infrastructure of about 7000 of the same machines - some bought with
HAVA money not long ago, some bought with County funds.
At first the local elections commissioner and the State Attorney
General (who
is responsible for elections, untypically for the rest of the U. S.)
stonewalled our
efforts, although the County elected Freeholders held up authoriziation
of the funds.
There are industry rumblings about closed territories and inside deals
in a field that
was not subject to public scrutiny until recently.
But we finally got their attention and may have stopped them
with a certification issue that may apply tot Diebold as well as
Sequoia - the
absence of demonstrable certifications on error rate, and also on all
the other items
that are required in HAVA 301. State certification is irrelevent; in
order to be
legal for use in Federal elections, and to qualify for reimbursement
from HAVA,
the machines must meet the Federal 2002 requirements of section 301 in
HAVA.
Otherwise any citizen can challenge Federal elections that use
non-certified equipment in court.
The hard thing for State officials to understand seems to be that this
is Federal.
State officials can certify all they want, but only the only the ITA's
(independent
testing labs) can do the tests and issue certifications.
I'm attaching a 1 page discussion of this, with tacked on quotes from
the laws, that
seemed to get the message across to officials. The EAC recently issued
an advisory (also attached)
that specifically mentions sections of the FEC VVS guidelines that
specify the Federal 2002
requirements, making those sections no longer voluntary. Hava 301 also
specifically mentions
VVS section 3.2.1 on maximum error rates, which are fivefold stronger
than they were
in the 1990 standards.
Feel free to follow up on this anytime.....Rich
<<...>> <<...>>
Rich Janow, Ph. D.
514 North Wyoming Avenue
South Orange, N. J.
_janow@att.net_ <mailto:janow@att.net >
(973) 762-4987
Thanks to helderheid here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x386649