Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News, Thursday 3/2/06

[Wilms]

Election Reform Forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[Wilms]

1. Source Code Review and Functional Testing of Diebold Software

Source Code Review and Functional Testing

Diebold Election Systems, Inc.

CIBER Huntsville and CIBER’s Global Security Practice

February 23, 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The TSX interpreter inspected appears to be ready for an election. The AV-OS interpreter inspected appears to be sufficiently secure to run an election if the recommended corrective measures are applied to the interpreter and rechecked. If trusted chain-of-custody were established to prevent tampering with memory cards between the GEMS system and the AV-OS voting machines, then the existing units would be safe for an election.

The fact that the programs appear to provide adequate security shall not be interpreted to mean that the programs are without security vulnerabilities or are impenetrable. It does mean that the programs appear to provide reasonable assurance that it can protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information it processes, stores, and communicates.

It is standard practice at CIBER to provide recommendations in addition to review findings. In addition to the recommendations that will be placed throughout this report, one high-level recommendation is provided:

• Certain vulnerabilities in this report may require a portion of the code to be modified in order to correct the vulnerabilities identified. To ensure that the efforts to correct vulnerabilities do not introduce new vulnerabilities, CIBER strongly recommends retesting of the remediated code prior to its migration to a production environment.

The interpreter had three security vulnerabilities and a small number of requirement violations that were not capable of being exploited by malicious code or operators. Of the three serious problems, they can be fixed with minor code changes.

No issues were discovered with the compiler that impacts the security of the system. There were no findings in the inspection of the AccuBasic Scripts that would materially impact the security of the system.

snip

pdf
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/diebold_code_review_final.pdf

CA SoS Voting Systems Page
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm

Discussions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x414950

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x414997

[Wilms]

2. CA: Where's The Hearing on Diebold's Security Flaws Discovered By The SoS?

California: Where's The Hearing on Diebold's Security Flaws Discovered By The Secretary of State?

New Report From Diebold'Hired Testing Company Reveals Security Flaws in Machines Certified By Secretary of State

State Senator Bowen Criticizes Secretary's Refusal To Publicly Vett Two SoS-Requested Reports Identifying Security Flaws in Diebold Machines

By Warren Stewart

March 01, 2006

As the Secretary of State held a hearing today on whether voting systems from four manufacturers should be certified for use in California, Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee, criticized the Secretary’s continuing refusal to hold a public hearing on the security flaws that have been identified in the Diebold systems he re-certified for use on February 17.

snip

Today’s hearing involved the proposed certifications of voting systems from ES&S, Hart InterCivic, Sequoia, and Populex. The Secretary of State did hold a hearing on the Diebold re-certification request on November 21, 2005. However, that hearing was held before the February 17, 2006, release of a report from the Secretary’s Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB) that identified 16 security flaws in the Diebold machines, and before the February 28, 2006, release of a report from the independent testing authorities (ITA) that identified three security flaws in the Diebold machines and recommended code changes.

snip

“What’s not clear is whether the Secretary is now going to require Diebold to modify its equipment and re-test it to address the issues raised by the ITA report, or whether he’s going to continue to ignore the security flaws identified by this report and the report put out by his own staff,” continued Bowen. “The Secretary’s decision to rely on elections officials and volunteer poll workers in hundreds of polling places around the state to manually override the embedded security flaws in these machines concerns me and should concern anyone who cares about the reliability, the accuracy, and the integrity of California’s elections.”

Following is a timeline of the important dates and actions related to the Secretary of State’s decision to re-certify the Diebold voting systems:

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=985&Itemid=113


Discussion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=415129&mesg_id=415129

[Wilms]

23. Editorial: McPherson's choice - E-voting delay left counties in limbo

:nopity:

e-voting certification leaves voters in limbo :grr:

Editorial: McPherson's choice

E-voting delay left counties in limbo

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B6

In certifying the controversial Diebold voting system with conditions last month, California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson moved too slowly but finally did the only responsible thing he could do. San Diego County is set to hold a special congressional election April 10. The June primary is fast approaching when every county must have a state-certified voting system in place. Local elections officials were beginning to panic.

Until McPherson acted, more than two-thirds of the state's 58 counties had no voting systems that passed legal muster. Many of those counties, including El Dorado and San Joaquin, had been planning to use the Diebold touch-screen or optical scan systems. When questions arose about whether a key component within those systems, a memory card, could be hacked, the secretary of state sent the component back to Washington for further review by federal testers. That was back in December.

Despite McPherson's urgent calls for an expedited review, federal officials did not respond until yesterday. Under intense pressure from local voting officials, McPherson convened a panel of state experts, including three computer scientists who had been highly critical of the Diebold system. Their report acknowledges "serious vulnerabilities" in the Diebold system. However, it concludes that with new security precautions, those vulnerabilities are manageable.

McPherson has ordered counties that use the Diebold system to add what one county registrar calls common sense precautions to their procedures. Voting officials are scrambling to get the newly approved Diebold machines in place and to train poll workers. With the April and June elections fast approaching they don't have much time.

Meanwhile, predictably, McPherson is being hammered. State Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, who is running to replace him as secretary of state, has called his Diebold decision "a rush job." She criticizes McPherson for not waiting for the federal testers to finish their review; yet last December she criticized him for "punting" to Washington at all, arguing that the decision "needs to be made right here in California."

While the politicians spar, counties are charged with conducting elections that comply with new state and federal laws. They need new tools to do so. They need them now.

snip

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14223837p-15048746c.html

[Wilms]

27. CA: No-confidence vote on electronic system

No-confidence vote on electronic system

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's decision to certify electronic voting machines made by the Diebold company for the 2006 elections drew a host of critics downtown who said the devices are vulnerable to fraud and hackers

By Kevin Yamamura -- Bee Capitol Bureau

Thursday, March 2, 2006

Story appeared on Page A3 of The Bee

snip

Beforehand, dozens of activists held a grass-roots rally outside the secretary of state's office. Organizers sold $2 bumper stickers and buttons, as well as a "Truth CD" that was said to include "690 MB of the best documents and videos that tell the story of the stolen (2004) election that you won't find in the corporate media."

snip

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14224561p-15049172c.html

[Wilms]

28. CA: State rush on touch screens risks secure voting

Critics: State rush on touch screens risks secure voting

Activists say substandard devices being considered for June; disabled advocates pleased

03/02/2006 4:16 AM PST

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

SACRAMENTO — As state officials race to evaluate voting machines for the June elections, critics complained Wednesday that the state was short-circuiting its own rules and putting substandard tools in the hands of voters.

snip

Even though deadlines for both were Jan. 1, 2006, the nation's dozen voting-machine firms managed to get only one machine meeting both requirements by that date. McPherson ordered makers into a tight schedule of applications and testing, culminating in Wednesday's hearing before his staff on three firms' systems. Decisions on each are expected within the next two weeks.

Those decisions will be watched carefully by Los Angeles County, which wants to use the latest version of its InkaVote system, marketed by Election Systems & Software; by San Francisco, Santa Clara, Riverside and as many as 17 other counties that want to use the latest optical scanners and touch screens from Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems; and by Orange County, which wants to use Hart's latest touch-screen system.

snip

Alameda County, for example, is considering handing out paper ballots in the polling places while offering touch screens possibly borrowed from San Diego County to voters with disabilities. San Mateo County is moving ahead with a 12-county proposal for a one-time, all-mail election in June. Failing necessary approval by the state Legislature, the county may accommodate voters with disabilities by setting up two dozen or so regional voting centers with Hart touch screens, the remainder of voters to use optically scanned paper ballots.

snip

http://insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_3561625

[Wilms]

29. CA: Mail-in ballots the only option, Solano election manager says

Mail-in ballots the only option, Solano election manager says

March 2, 2006

By GREG MOBERLY, Times-Herald staff writer

Voters from 12 California counties, including Solano, should know within weeks if they'll head to the polls June 6 or vote by mail.

Solano County Election Manager Deborah Seiler says the county needs mail-only balloting because it can't comply with the federal Help America Vote Act. The law requires one voting machine per polling place at which disabled residents can vote privately and unassisted.

"I just don't feel it's accessible," Seiler said of the requirement.

Seiler said she didn't know why the iVotronic touch-screen machines were withdrawn, but she intimated it might be because of new state requirements that all touch-screen machines be able to make to printouts.

ES&S spokeswoman Jill Friedman said it was a "business decision" to pull iVotronic from consideration because most of the company's systems in California are paper-based. But she said the iVotronic may be resubmitted for state certification.

She said she's confident the company's Automark machines meet the new disabled standard, despite concerns from some, including Seiler, that the feeding of a ballot into a central counting machine doesn't allow for a private and unassisted vote.

Seiler and the 12 counties' election leaders are lobbying legislators for required mail-only balloting authority.

snip

http://timesheraldonline.com/todaysnews/ci_3562177

[Wilms]

33. CA certification hearing draws e-voting critics

CA certification hearing draws e-voting critics

Kim Alexander

March 02, 2006

Yesterday I attended the Secretary of State's public hearing on certification of new voting equipment for California. There were about 80-100 people in attendance, many coming from outside of Sacramento. The crowd included activists, county election officials, vendors and reporters.

Prior to the hearing, a group of activists, many affiliated with the California Election Protection Network, held a rally criticizing Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's decision to certify voting equipment manufactured by Diebold. Once inside the meeting, however, the citizens who spoke up focused their remarks on general distrust of computerized voting systems. Several spoke out in favor of hand-counting paper ballots, and many expressed a lack of confidence in voting systems produced by private companies and utilizing proprietary software.

My comments focused on the draft procedures produced by the vendors, and specifically their descriptions (or lack thereof) of how the one percent manual count be conducted. I also expressed concern that the volume testing on Sequoia's Edge I and II touchscreen voting machines showed numerous problems with the voter activation cards, or "smart cards" used to call up the electronic ballots. During the meeting Bruce McDannold of the Secretary of State's staff explained these problems were due to the fact that the smart cards were preprogrammed before the volume test began. During my testimony I said that additional volume tests should be conducted to ensure the voter activation cards are working properly. I also expressed concern about the number of printer problems found in the Hart eSlate electronic voting machine found during volume testing, and said that it should not be certified until those problems are worked out.

snip

http://calvoter.org/news/blog/2006_03_01_blogarchive.html#114132643318189514

[Wilms]

37. CA: More Republican Voting Registration Fraud

Dozens of New O.C. Democrats Were Signed Up as Republicans

Registrar will turn over 100 cases of improper registration for possible prosecution.

The GOP practice of paying for new voters is blamed.

By Jean O. Pasco, Times Staff Writer

March 2, 2006

Orange County election officials said Wednesday they were preparing to turn over 100 instances of improper voter registration for possible criminal prosecution.

Included are three dozen complaints of Democrats being signed up as Republicans in one of the county's most competitive legislative districts.

Most of the examples being handed over to the district attorney's office emerged from a routine review by county officials, but Democrats independently found others.

The Democratic Voter Education and Registration Fund found numerous problems with registrations in central Orange County's 34th state Senate District, spokesman Paul Hefner said, including invalid phone numbers and addresses on hundreds of forms.

"You don't have to go to Washington to find the latest Republican scandal; they're footing the bill for registration fraud right here in California," Hefner said from Sacramento.

snip

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-gop2mar02,0,2723818.story?coll=la-headlines-politics


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x560348#top

[Wilms]

38. CA: Flawed Voting Machines Get State OK

Flawed Voting Machines Get State OK

Thursday, March 02, 2006

By Tom Elias

You can call it capitulation to local election officials likely to be called on the carpet if it turned out they had wasted tens of millions of dollars. You can call it practicality, assuring that California counties can put the most modern election equipment into use this year.

snip

Now it is certain that the machines will get wide use starting with an April special election in San Diego County to replace the disgraced Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham. Because of the certification, Diebold machines will likely also be in use by June in Alameda, Marin, Butte, Eldorado and a dozen other counties, including Los Angeles.

County election officials greeted McPherson's move with joy. In many counties, they've spent tens of millions of dollars on Diebold machines, starting as early as 2003. "If Diebold is your star play, this is good news," Steve Weir, vice president of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officers and elections chief in Contra Costa County, told one reporter.

snip

But McPherson provided neither detail on how the new rules might be enforced nor a guarantee they will be enforced at all by the state. Of course, no matter what rules may be set, they are worthless without strong enforcement

snip

It may all add up to more skepticism among voters already suspicious of electronic balloting. This could create greater than ever demand for absentee paper ballots and cause unprecedented slowdowns in vote-counting. It might also spur many thousands of voters to stay away from the polls altogether, feeling that with questionable machines, there's no guarantee their votes will be counted accurately even if they do turn out.

snip

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/contentview.asp?c=180050

[Wilms]

22. MD/CA: Gov. Ehrlich's concerns about Diebold voting persist

Ehrlich's concerns about voting persist

Governor says elections board has failed to address his questions regarding Diebold devices

By Kelly Brewington
Sun reporter

March 2, 2006

Two weeks ago, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said he no longer had faith in Maryland's ability to conduct a fair and tamper-free election, and asked the State Board of Elections for a written response to his concerns about electronic voting machines.

Yesterday, a spokesman for Ehrlich called the Board of Elections' reply - received this week - "completely unsatisfactory and evasive."

"After reading this letter, we have even less confidence in the board's ability to conduct a fair election than we did two weeks ago," said Henry Fawell, an Ehrlich spokesman.

An official with the board defended Maryland's voting system yesterday, saying the letter provides the requested facts.

Ehrlich's letter to State Board of Elections Chairman Gilles W. Burger, a Republican, requested answers about recent controversies in other states over Diebold Elections Systems, the Ohio-based manufacturer of Maryland's voting machines. The governor said he wanted the state to adopt a voter-verified paper trail for its touch-screen machines, an issue that has been debated in the legislature for several years.

snip

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.voting02mar02,0,181972.story?coll=bal-mdpolitics-headlines

[Wilms]

35. MD: State Board of Elections Admits That Diebold Touchscreens Are Hackable

Maryland: State Board of Elections Admits That Diebold Touchscreens Are Hackable

By TrueVoteMD

March 02, 2006

The controversy over whether Maryland's 20,000 TS voting units are vulnerable to the 'Hursti hack' entered a new chapter today.

In a letter dated February 28, 2006 (page 3), the Maryland's State Board of Elections has now admitted to Governor Ehrlich and other state leadership that the hackable code is on the TS machines: "The code and the touchscreen and optical scan memory cards on which it resides are the same as those used in Maryland's current Diebold systems." The fact that Maryland's voting systems can be hacked is itself a violation of state election law.

Further, California's independent review of that state's Diebold equipment confirms that Maryland's system is hackable, out of compliance with federal standards and should be de-certified for use. Detailed analysis below.

California Diebold Report Confirms that Maryland’s Voting System is Not Compliant with Federal Standards Independent Security Analysis discovers hackable code/dangerous vulnerabilities & recommends not using Diebold voting systems for statewide elections.

TrueVoteMD has just completed a review of the “Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter,” issued by the California Voting Systems Technology Advisory Board on February 14, 2006.

The findings of this report have confirmed that Maryland’s Diebold voting systems, both AccuVote-TS touchscreens and AccuVote-OS optical scanners, are not in compliance with federal standards because of the existence of Accu-Basic, banned interpreted software code. The report also confirmed that the Diebold AV-OS system is vulnerable to the famous “Harri Hursti hack” that was demonstrated in a mock election in Leon County, Florida in December, 2005. Further, the analysis discovered numerous additional bugs in the interpreter that “lead to another, more dangerous family of vulnerabilities.” (page 2)

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=991&Itemid=113


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415278

[Wilms]

3. Feds Sue New York Over (HAVA) Reform

Feds Sue New York Over Voting Rights Reform

March 1, 2006

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Federal officials sued New York on Wednesday over its worst-in-the-nation record of complying with the Help America Vote Act, the first time the Department of Justice has sued a state over the new voting requirements.

The HAVA requirements, adopted in the wake of the disputed 2000 presidential election, were designed to update the nation's voting systems. New York has been tagged by the Department of Justice and other critics as the state that has made the slowest progress in complying with the legislation.

Justice Department officials have also been in talks with other states about their progress in meeting HAVA requirements.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Albany and charges that the state has failed to put in place a system that will allow disabled voters to cast their own ballots which are capable of generating a paper record and of failing to create a statewide computerized voter registration database.

snip

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/7584257/detail.html

Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415081

[Wilms]

6. NY: DoJ Press Release

DOJ Sues New York State Over Voting Rights

Lawsuit Seeks to Vindicate Rights of Disabled Voters, Federal Election Reform Efforts3/1/2006 1:57:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, 202-514-2007 or 202-514-1888 (TDD)

WASHINGTON, March 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Justice Department announced today that it has filed suit against the State of New York alleging violations of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, in Albany.

The government's complaint contends that the state has failed to comply with two of HAVA's requirements governing federal elections: that states (i) adopt voting systems that are fully accessible by disabled voters and are capable of generating a permanent paper record that can be manually audited, and (ii) create a statewide computerized voter registration database. The lawsuit is the first filed to vindicate these important federal obligations.

"HAVA contains important reforms designed to ensure that elections for federal office will both allow access to all voters and ensure the integrity of the process," said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. "We believe today's lawsuit will help ensure that New York voters enjoy the benefits of these important reforms."

HAVA was enacted with bipartisan support after the 2000 presidential election and was signed into law by President Bush on October 29, 2002. States had nearly three years to comply with the provisions enforced under today's lawsuit, which took effect January 1, 2006.

snip

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=61677


pdf of the Complaint
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/New%20York/NY%20DOJ%20complaint.pdf

[Wilms]

36. NY: Justice Sues

Justice Sues New York

by Dan Tokaji

snip

One of the things to keep an eye on the fine print on what sort of "matching" is required, and the circumstances under which voters' names are removed from the list. While DOJ is right to take action against New York, in my opinion, there's reason to be concerned that DOJ may use its enforcement authority to compel database maintence practices that exceed what HAVA requires, and could result in barriers to the vote -- for example, in people being erroneously struck from registration lists on the ground that there are duplicate registrations or that their information couldn't be "matched" due to a transcription error.

The Brennan Center has recently issued a report on database matching, which highlights the need for attention to this area. According to that report, some states are rejecting registration applications that can't be matched against motor vehicle or social security records, even though data entry errors may be responsible for discrepancies. It's especially important to keep a close eye on the present DOJ's use of its HAVA enforcement power, given its dubious record of enforcing voting rights laws in an apparently partisan manner, which I've discussed here and here.

snip

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/03/justice-sues-new-york.html

[Wilms]

20. NY: U.S. Is Suing State Over 2002 Voting Law

U.S. Is Suing New York Over 2002 Voting Law

The state has been the slowest to implement the Help America Vote Act, according to federal officials, and could lose $49 million in aid.

From Associated Press

March, 2 2006

ALBANY, N.Y. — The Department of Justice sued the state of New York on Wednesday over its worst-in-the-nation record of complying with the Help America Vote Act, the first time federal officials have sued a state over the new voting requirements.

Adopted after the disputed 2000 presidential election, the act was designed to update the nation's voting systems. Supporters of the act have identified New York as making the least progress in complying with the legislation.

But a frequent critic of New York's compliance said the federal lawsuit might "do more harm than good" by forcing New York to quickly buy new voting machines that could be low-quality. That could "throw this <2006> election into chaos," said Neal Rosenstein of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

"It's absurd to rush such a process," he said. "The rotten HAVA implementation process on the state level shouldn't be mirrored by a rotten judicial enforcement process."

snip

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-vote2mar02,1,7682998.story?coll=la-news-a_section

[Wilms]

21. NY: Critics Say Voting Machines Suit May Cause Chaos at Fall Elections

Critics Say Voting Machines Suit May Cause Chaos at Fall Elections

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun

March 2, 2006

A lawsuit filed by the federal government yesterday against the state of New York could mean chaotic elections this fall, experts warn.

With the lawsuit, the Department of Justice seeks to force the state Board of Elections to purchase voting machines that are accessible to the disabled in time for the primary election in September.

But some experts who have criticized New York for doing next to nothing in recent years to procure new voting machines warn that the lawsuit might prompt state officials to make the wrong decisions.

"After all the fiddling of thumbs at the state Board of Elections, we're in no position to have a wholesale change to our voting process in time for this September election," an election law expert at the New York Public Interest Research Group, Neal Rosenstein, said. "If the Justice Department's goal for this year's election is chaos they should go full steam ahead."

snip

http://www.nysun.com/article/28429

[Wilms]

25. NY: Erie County Public Meeting Video - How To Pay for HAVA?

I recommend watching them.

How To Pay for HAVA?

Written by BuffaloWatchdog

Thursday, 23 February 2006

Buffalo, NY - A very poorly attended public meeting took place Wednesday for public and elected officials to comment on how to bring Erie County into compliance with the Help America Vote Act.


Recommended VIDEO: Click here to see Comptroller Poloncarz's statement

Highly Recommended VIDEO: Click here to see what others had to say


Here's the problem in a nutshell...

The Erie County Legislature took $175,000 from a contingency fund to pay for Tuesday's special election. Leaving about $1.4 Million.

Now, there isn't enough money left in the counties contingency fund to pay for elections inspectors and other BOE operating costs, not to mention HAVA requirements.

Other HAVA-related costs are estimated at $3 million. Most of the HAVA expenses will be reimbursed to the county from the Feds and other municipalities, however, authorities say that process takes two years, meaning Erie County has to bear those costs up front.

Meanwhile, the Erie County Legislature needs to decide how much the 4,300 inspectors across the county should make in future elections. The recommended pay rates are is between $160 to $180 a day. Inspectors in Erie County currently make between $115 and $132 dollars a day.

snip

http://www.wnymedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1048&Itemid=37

[Wilms]

4. PA: Voting Machines Lawsuit Goes Before State Supreme Court

Voting Machines Lawsuit Goes Before Pa. Supreme Court

Vote PA Plaintiff/DUer demodonkey Appears Before Camera :D

March 1, 2006

The debate over changes in Pennsylvania voting procedure have reached the state's highest court.

The state is arguing it will face even worse than the "hanging chads" problem in the Florida presidential vote recount of 2000 if it is forced to use paper ballots because a citizens' lawsuit blocks use of modern voting machines this May.

With the spring primary 70 days away, the state is under the gun to obey changes in federal voting law.

"You're going to have eight people hovering around every paper ballot, determining where was that check mark, did the voter really check that box or this box, what did they intend to do -- ballot, by ballot, by ballot," said attorney for the state Mark Aronchick.

snip

"I think that's just the most ludicrous argument. Pennsylvania voters are smart. We have smart people in Pennsylvania. They can handle voting on a paper ballot," said Vote PA plaintiff Mary Beth Kuznik.

snip

Video at the link

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/7587356/detail.html


Discussions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415163

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415060

[Wilms]

31. PA: Justices say Pa. county can switch voting systems

Justices say Pa. county can switch voting systems

By PETER JACKSON

The Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. - The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a county may replace its mechanical lever voting machines without voter approval in a case that pitted new federal election laws against the state constitution.

The ruling eases concerns about possible disruptions in the planned upgrading of voting systems in dozens of counties before the May 16 primary election.

The decision, which overturned a lower court, was announced in a one-page order that promised a subsequent opinion explaining the justices' reasoning.

The lower court judge - Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini - said the 2002 federal law that requires many counties to upgrade their systems before the primary affects only federal elections, while the state constitution requires voters' approval for any change in voting systems.

snip

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-03022006-620337.html

[Wilms]

34. PA Governor Commends State Supreme Court

PA Governor Rendell Commends State Supreme Court for Clarifying That Counties Can Buy New Electronic Voting Machines

Counties can purchase electronic voting machines without a referendum

HARRISBURG, Pa., March 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell commended the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today for taking action that will allow Westmoreland County, and other counties, to move ahead with plans to buy new electronic voting machines as part of a federal requirement before the May primary election.

"The Supreme Court today has clarified the rules that will help Pennsylvania counties appropriately prepare for upcoming elections," Governor Rendell said. "With this prompt decision by the court, counties can now move forward in meeting the federal requirements under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and buy new electronic voting machines."

The state Supreme Court reversed a February 13 decision by Commonwealth Court that had prohibited Westmoreland County from buying new electronic voting machines (Mary Beth Kuznik, et al. v. Westmoreland County Board of Commissioners, et al., No. 18 MAP 2006).

"Though the State Supreme Court soon will issue an opinion explaining its order, we believe that the Court's ruling validates what the commonwealth's position has been all along," Governor Rendell said. "Federal law supersedes any state laws that hinder the commonwealth's compliance with mandates of federal law.

snip

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-02-2006/0004312542&EDATE=

Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415288

[Wilms]

5. PA: Punch-card voting system to be used in May primary

Punch-card voting system to be used in May primary

R. JONATHAN TULEYA, Staff Writer

03/01/2006

WEST CHESTER -- Chester County’s punch-card voting system will remain in place for the May primary, the board of commissioners announced on Tuesday.

In an effort to comply with state and federal laws, the machines will be supplemented at each precinct by a second voting system accessible to disabled individuals, called direct recording electronic voting units.

All three commissioners agreed the solution is only a temporary one.

"We are going though a long process," Commissioners’ Chairwoman Carol Aichele said, "and it is our intent that we want people to have confidence the ballots they are casting are for the people they selected."

snip

http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16216665&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=6

[Wilms]

32. PA: State elections boss defends mandate for electronic voting machines

State elections boss defends mandate for electronic voting machines

Alison Hawkes, Times Capital Bureau

03/02/2006

HARRISBURG -The state's highest ranking elections official characterized the need for paper records of votes from electronic voting machines "a solution in search of a problem."

Secretary of State Pedro Cortes has been under growing pressure by critics of electronic voting machines to mandate, or certify for use in Pennsylvania, voting machine systems that provide paper records of ballots cast electronically for the purposes of a recount, as 26 other states have done.

But questioned by several lawmakers this week at a House Appropriations hearing, Cortes said voter-verified, paper-audit trails, as they are known, could compromise voter privacy and create accessibility problems for disabled voters.

He also said lawmakers have given him no legal clarification on the use of a paper ballot backup in a recount.

snip

http://www.timesonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16217634&BRD=2305&PAG=461&dept_id=478569&rfi=6

Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415271

[Wilms]

7. NM Gets Paper Ballots!....on Paper, Anyway

New Mexico Governor To Sign Bill Guaranteeing a Paper Ballot For The States Voters

But How Long Will It Take To Come Into Effect

by John Gideon

3/1/200

Today Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico made a powerful statement to officials in all states (see below) as he announced that tomorrow he would be signing legislation that would require the state of New Mexico to go to a paper ballot based voting system. No longer will the state use Sequoia DRE voting machines. The machines that reported large numbers of undervotes in previous elections. The same machines that disenfranchised minority voters.

snip

This all sounds wonderful, except………opponents of the legislation managed to get the legislation amended so that voting systems "owned or used" as of 1 May 2006 that do not use paper ballots can continue to be used until, among other things, debt on purchases of those machines are paid by the state. Then, the bill that appropriated funds to pay off the debt died in committee. Now the state needs to find the money to pay off the debt.

snip

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002485.htm

and VoteTrustUSA has more.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=983&Itemid=113


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415148

[Wilms]

8. NM Governor Bill Richardson's Letter to All State Election Directors

New Mexico: Governor's Letter to All State Election Directors

By New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson

March 01, 2006

To the State Officials of the 50 United States of America

The hallmark of American democracy is one person, one vote.

The reason refugees and immigrants, students and professionals from around the world continue to flock toward our shores is because we fundamentally believe in the worth of each person. We believe “all men and all women are created equal.” We believe that regardless of gender, race, class or creed – all voices deserve respect; all voices deserve to be heard. And when it comes to elections, all votes deserve to be counted.

But is our democracy, is our hallmark principle of one person, one vote, on solid ground?

Recent elections would suggest that democracy, the greatest system of government in the world, can be broken. As the world witnessed in 2000, the sanctity of the ballot box and the integrity of our government are vulnerable. The people of the United States lost faith in the electoral process, and the covenant between citizens and elected officials deteriorated. Those national officials scrambled to pass legislation to restore voter confidence, but in 2004, inaccurate exit polls raised further doubts about electronic voting machines without a verifiable paper record.

In New Mexico, a coalition of concerned citizens demanded action. Working together with these citizens and the state legislature, I signed several laws which guarantee that every ballot is counted. New Mexico improved and standardized training for poll workers. We established statewide standards for provisional ballots to ensure that voters in low-income areas will not disenfranchised. We made absentee voting fair, simple, and uniform.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=983&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

9. FL: Smith files bill to require voting paper trail

Smith files bill to require voting paper trail

By Bill Cotterell

March 1, 2006

A Democratic candidate for governor has filed a bill requiring counties to use voting machines that leave paper trails.

State Sen. Rod Smith, D-Gainesville, said 25 states now require a tangible receipt for electronic voting. He said 16 require that the paper ballots be used for any recounts.

snip

Smith is running against U.S. Rep. Jim Davis of Tampa for the Democratic nomination for governor. His bill was sent to the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee, which will consider the proposal after the 2006 legislative session convenes next week.

Read more about paper-trail balloting in the Tallahassee Democrat on Thursday.

snip

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/BREAKINGNEWS/603010356

[Wilms]

10. FL: Wexler Urges Secretary of State To Implement Paper Trail

Florida: Wexler Urges Secretary of State To Implement Paper Trail

By Warren Stewart
March 01, 2006

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) sent the following letter to Florida's Secretary of State Sue Cobb urging her to move expeditiously on implementing a paper trail. On Friday, February 17, Secretary Cobb spoke in support of a uniform standard for paper ballots, but said the power to require a paper trail rests in the hands of the legislature. While Wexler applauds Secretary Cobb's supportive comments, he does not agree with her assessment on how to proceed. The Florida legislature has spoken on this issue, requiring a manual recount in the event of a close election. Wexler believes that Florida's election law is quite clear and now the onus is Secretary Cobb to work with the 67 counties to ensure compliance. Currently, 52 counties in Florida use optical scan machines that allow for a manual recount, while the other 15 counties use touch-screen voting machines that have a paperless system that cannot be recounted. In addition, Wexler is requesting that Secretary Cobb look into allegations made by Black Box Voting last week regarding the 2004 Presidential election results in Palm Beach County. Black Box Voting founder Bev Harris said computers logged about 100,000 errors, including memory failure. Wexler is concerned that without a paper trail it is impossible to ensure that every vote is counted as fairly and accurately as possible.

Over the past 3 years, Wexler has been fighting for a paper trail in Florida. On December 7, Wexler appeared before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Florida is currently not in compliance with the Bush v. Gore standard and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Appeals Court has not yet issued an opinion on Wexler's lawsuit.
February 28, 2006

snip/letter

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

11. FL: Leon commissioners still seething over missed election deadline

Leon commissioners still seething over missed election deadline

By Jeff Burlew

February 28, 2006

Leon County Commissioner Ed DePuy suggested Tuesday that a grand jury should investigate why the Supervisor of Elections Office was unable to get voting equipment for the disabled by a January deadline.

DePuy, during Tuesday's County Commission meeting, said only an impartial panel of jurors could get to the bottom of the matter. Commissioner Tony Grippa agreed, but DePuy later withdrew the request.

snip

"I want people under oath to go in and testify as to why we can't get our act together in Leon County," DePuy said before withdrawing his motion.

Commissioner Cliff Thaell said asking for a grand jury would be "a very dangerous step." Commissioner Bob Rackleff called the idea "shameful and grotesque."

snip

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060228/BREAKINGNEWS/602280353

[Wilms]

12. MS: State bond fund to finance more voting machines - HAVA ain't enough

State bond fund to finance more voting machines

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

By LEA ANNE BRANDON

snip

Last week, 240 of those new Diebold touch screen voting machines were delivered to the Madison County Circuit Clerk’s office.

snip

Last summer, Clark announced that he had negotiated and signed a contract with Diebold Election Systems Inc. to supply 5,164 new touch-screens at a statewide “bulk purchase” cost of $15 million. Counties had the option of purchasing the Diebold equipment under the state-negotiated below market price and receiving state funds to help with that cost or of selecting their own federally acceptable equipment and paying for it with local tax revenues. After weeks of flip-flopping between Clark’s recommendation and other available equipment, Madison County officials opted for the Diebold machines.

snip

According to Assistant Secretary of State Jay Eads, Madison County was initially allocated $336,000 in federal and state funds to purchase 157 Diebold machines, $10,000 for tabulation servers and software; $100,800 for installation, training and voter education; $126,000 for five years of support and maintenance from Diebold; and $20,000 for a SEMS interface system to connect the county to a statewide voter tabulation system. That total of $592,800 was supplemented by another $200,000 of county funds to purchase the 240 machines initially ordered for the county’s use.

“We still don’t know for sure how much it is going to cost us to comply with the federal order and to meet the needs of a county that is growing as fast as ours,” said District 1 Supervisor Douglas Jones.

snip

http://www.onlinemadison.com/Main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=16488

[Wilms]

13. Voting Rights Act Renewal News

Voting Rights Act Renewal News

February 27, 2006

by Dan Tokaji

The Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has released this report by the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act. Chaired by Bill Lann Lee, the commission makes the evidentiary case for reauthorization of the provisions of the VRA that expire in August 2007. Foremost among them are Section 5's preclearance requirement and the language assistance requirements contained in Section 203.

The report includes findings from the testimony of more than 100 witnesses, taken during 10 days of hearings. It concludes that "efforts to suppress the minority vote, while not as systematic and pervasive of those in the pre-Act South, are still encountered in every election cycle throughout the country." It makes specific findings regarding voting discrimination against African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans.

In related news, USA Today had this story of voting discrimination against Vietnamese Americans in a small Alabama town. A candidate whose supporters challenged the eligibility of some 3000 voters is quoted as saying "we figured if they couldn't speak good English, they possibly weren't American citizens."

While Section 5 is almost certain to be reauthorized, there's some opposition to the language assistance provisions developing in the House. Fifty-five members of the House of Representatives have sent this letter to House Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner, opposing reauthorization of Section 203. They argue that Section 203 encourages "linguistic division" and that it's a waste of taxpayer money to provide and other language assistance to non-English proficient voters. Civil rights groups have released this response from James Tucker of Arizona State University.

snip/links

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/02/vra-renewal-news.html

[Wilms]

14. WA: County keeps bickering over election fixes

County keeps bickering over election fixes

`Dismayed' task force says the fighting puts all-mail voting at risk2006-03-01

by and Mike Ullmann
Journal Reporters

Bickering and hand-wringing continue to keep King County from fixing its elections department and could cripple the move to hold all-mail elections, a county task force charged Tuesday.

``It's simply not enough. We're dismayed,'' said Cheryl Scott, chair of the county's Independent Task Force on Elections, a group appointed by County Executive Ron Sims.

snip

The council's chairman, Larry Phillips of Seattle, said Scott needs to read a different report from a different group -- the council-appointed Citizens Election Oversight Committee, which he said did a better job of identifying changes than Sims' task force.

The nonpartisan Inde- pendent Task Force was appointed after problems with the 2000 and 2002 elections turned into the disastrous 2004 governor's election. On Tuesday, it released a six-month report card of how the county has responded to its initial recommendations.

snip

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/231381

[Wilms]

15. Indiana study of vote centers

ElectionLawBlog

Indiana study of vote centers

Monday, February 27, 2006

by Michael Alvarez

Recently, Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita led a bipartisan delegation of legislators and local election officials from his state to Larimer County, Colorado, to observe the operation of vote centers in that jurisdiction. Secretary Rokita's office released the result of their observation, and their recommendations about how the vote center concept might be used in Indiana. The report, "A Study of Vote Centers, and their Applicability to the Hoosier Election Process," is a very nice summary of the pros and cons of the vote center concept --- but also an excellent example of how election officials can learn from observing the innovations of their colleagues, and how they can then help inform all observers of elections by making public their findings.

The core of the report is a list of pros and cons of the vote center concept. Among the advantages identified by the research group are:

1. Improved and more streamlined election management.
2. Cost savings.
3. Voter convenience.


And the disadvantages identified in the report are:

1. Resistance to change, and the possible increase in inconvenience for some voters.
2. Technical sophistication required by the county election officials to operate a
vote center.
3. Increased costs of election administration, in particular costs associated with ballot printing and technological changes.

snip

http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2006/02/upcoming-events-of-election.html

[Wilms]

16. ELECTION 2006: Do You Know How Your Vote Will Be Counted?

ELECTION 2006: Do You Know How Your Vote Will Be Counted?

By Warren Stewart

March 1, 2006

Since the 2000 presidential election mess, we've checked in periodically on the vital issues of voter fraud, election reform and the rapid spread of electronic voting machines (see, most recently, our June 15, 2005, and April 15, 2005 issues). Critics have raised serious concerns about the safety of electronic voting; yet more and more states seem to be rushing to embrace this technology.

Battles over electronic voting have been raging recently at the state level, largely out of the view of major media. We asked the knowledgeable Warren Stewart to give our readers a primer on the troubles inherent in electronic voting and to catch us up on reform efforts still underway in several states. Stewart is the Director of Legislative Issues and Policy at VoteTrust USA, a non-partisan national organization that advocates for election integrity and e-voting reform.

he troubling truth about voting in America today is that a majority of the electorate casts their ballots on computers that run software that is hidden from public view and lacks any independent means of verification. The process by which our votes are cast and counted is controlled by private corporations to an extent that threatens the foundations of democracy.

Last September, the Government Accountability Office released a report on the security and reliability of electronic voting machines. The report, which detailed the findings of a nine-month study, said that "concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes." The GAO reported that it had confirmed instances of "weak security controls, system design flaws, inadequate system version control, inadequate security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor security management, and vague or incomplete voting system standards."

While acknowledging that efforts were under way to improve the situation, the report warned that "these actions are unlikely to have a significant effect in the 2006 federal election cycle." Not exactly reassuring.

And the situation has hardly improved in the months since. In many states, it is still unclear what kind of voting machines will be used in primaries only a few months away. Running elections has always been a daunting and largely unappreciated job performed by state and county officials. But the challenges they face in 2006 are unprecedented, and many have their fingers crossed hoping their experiments with voting technology will work out.

http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20060301evoting_1.cfm

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=988&Itemid=26


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415120

[Wilms]

17. Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio registrations put * back in the White House?

Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back in the White House?

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
Online Journal Guest Writers

Mar 1, 2006

While life goes on during the Bush2 nightmare, so does the research on what really happened here in 2004 to give George W. Bush a second term.

Pundits throughout the state and nation -- many of them alleged Democrats -- continue to tell those of us who question Bush's second coming that we should "get over it," that the election is old news.

But things get curiouser and curiouser.

In our 2005 compendium HOW THE GOP STOLE OHIO'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, we list more than a hundred different ways the Republican Party denied the democratic process in the Buckeye State. For a book of documents to be published September 11 by the New Press, entitled WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, we are continuing to dig.

It turns out, we missed more than a few of the dirty tricks Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell and their GOP used to get themselves four more years. In an election won with death by a thousand cuts, some that are still hidden go very deep. Over the next few weeks we will list them as they are verified.

snip

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_549.shtml


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x414992

[Wilms]

18. Upcoming Events of Election Organizations

ElectionUpdatesBlog

Upcoming Events of Election Organizations

Monday, February 27, 2006

To keep our blog readers informed of the different activities, workshops and conferences happening in the election organization community, here is a list of upcoming events. We will update this list periodically (monthly, as needed).

NASS: National Association of Secretaries of State
1. Winter Conference '06: Feb 3-6, 2006, Washington DC, w/NASED
2. Summer Conference '06: Jul 9-12, 2006, Santa Fe NM, w/NASED
3. Winter Conference'07: Feb 9-12, 2007, Washington DC
4. Summer Conference '07: Jul 15- 18, 2007, Portland OR
http://www.nased.org/conferences.htm

NASED - National Association of State Election Directors
1. Winter Meeting '06: Feb 4-6, 2006, Wash DC, w/NASS
2. Summer Meeting '06: Jul 9-11, 2006, Santa Fe NM, w/NASS
3. Winter Meeting '07: Feb10-12, 2007, Wash DC, w/The Election Center
http://www.nased.org/conferences.htm

The Election Center
1. Special Workshop: Feb 22-26, 2006, Albuquerque NM
2. Special Workshop: April 5-9, 2006, Cleveland OH
3. PEP Special Session at Auburn University, May 17-22, 2006, Auburn AL
4. Summer Session: 5 courses: VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, July 15-22, 2006, Cleveland OH
5. National Conference, Aug 15-19, 2006, Chicago, IL
http://www.electioncenter.org/events.html

IACREOT: International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers
1. Mid-winter Meeting: Jan 20-24, 2006, San Francisco CA
2. Annual Conference: Jul 4-8, 2006, San Francisco CA
3. Fall Meeting: Sept 27-30, 2006, Daytona Beach FL
http://www.iacreot.onlinecommunity.com/blox.asp

Usenix
1. NSDI 06: 3rd Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, May 8-10, 2006, San Jose CA
...Focuses on the design principles of large-scale networks and distributed systems.
2. Annual Technical Conference, May 30-Jun 3, 2006, Boston MA
http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix06

snip/links

http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2006/03/what-do-americans-think-about-who.html

[Wilms]

19. What do Americans think about who should run elections?

ElectionUpdatesBlog

What do Americans think about who should run elections?

by Michael Alvarez

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Yesterday, Thad Hall, Morgan Llewellyn and I released a working paper draft of our analysis of some interesting attitudinal data on American voter opinions regarding election governance. The paper is titled "Who Should Run Our Elections? Public Opinion About Election Governance in the United States". It's a much more thorough analysis of survey data that we initially released in a short study in June 2005.

snip

As readers know, we've been conducting these public opinion surveys since before the 2004 election, covering (in addition to election governance) a variety of opinion and attitudinal data about election reform and voting technology. In September 2004 we released a short study regarding some survey data we had collected regarding opinions about electronic voting, "American Attitudes About Electronic Voting: Results of a National Survey;" we have data from subsequent replications of this survey, and a much more comprehensive analysis in our forthcoming book (Thad and I) on the electronic voting controversy. We are now writing a study from these surveys of voter confidence in the electoral process (which Thad and I are co-authoring with Morgan). And there are a few other interesting sets of survey questions that we have some data on that we'll be writing about in coming months.

http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2006/03/what-do-americans-think-about-who.html

[Wilms]

24. NVRI Comments on Supreme Court Review of Vermont Spending Limit Law

NVRI Comments on Supreme Court Review of Vermont Spending Limit Law

NVRI E-News: March 1, 2006

Vermont's comprehensive campaign reforms came in for hard questioning in the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, but the Court arguments only underscored the fundamental values at stake in NVRI's work: the belief that government must be responsive to voters, not to moneyed interests that fund campaigns; that elections must be open to broad participation and competition, not controlled by massive campaign war chests that leave so many elections effectively uncontested; that elections should be about finding the best representative, not the best fundraiser.

Debate over these values was on display in much of the questioning, such as Chief Justice Roberts' suggestion that Vermont should not be permitted to enact reforms aimed at deterring corruption because the state has had no bribery convictions. Regardless of bribery convictions - which the Court never before has required as a pre-condition for campaign finance regulation - Vermont has seen extremely disturbing examples of how the need for campaign cash compromises the independence of officeholders. For example, the Vermont Senate President refused to sponsor a food-labeling bill, even though he agreed with it on the merits, because "I can't afford to lose the food manufacturer money." If these and other troubling examples of money-driven decision-making are insufficient, the result will be a true Catch-22 for campaign finance reform: a state will be permitted to enact reforms only if it is so permeated by corruption that there is virtually no possibility it will enact the reforms in the first place. NVRI continues to believe that the First Amendment imposes no such straitjacket on the states.

One revealing point in the argument came when Justice Stevens asked James Bopp, the attorney for Vermont Right to Life, whether he was arguing that the Constitution entirely forecloses campaign spending limits, regardless of how strong the evidence demonstrating the need for them. His answer was "no," and indeed a number of the Justices appeared to agree. If so, the terms of the debate clearly have shifted from the assumption that Buckley automatically invalidates any limit on candidates' campaign spending, a shift reflecting over a decade of efforts by NVRI and its allies seeking to revisit the issue.

What the Court ultimately will say about Vermont's spending limits, and about its contribution limits ranging from $200 for Vermont House races to $400 for statewide races, will have to await the Court's decision, which is expected by June. Whatever the outcome, NVRI will continue to fight for fair, open and participatory elections that serve the interests of voters.

snip/links

http://www.nvri.org/updates/e-updates/update_special_march_2006.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x415227

[paineinthearse]

26. VT/SCotUS

by email from John Bonifaz

Campaign Spending Limits Argued Before Court

On Tuesday, I joined my colleagues from the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), an organization I founded in 1994, who were before the Supreme Court presenting arguments in Randall v. Sorrell. The case will determine whether a Vermont state law setting strict campaign spending limits and donation guidelines is constitutional. It is the Court's first opportunity in 30 years to revisit its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down congressional spending limits on First Amendment grounds.

Click here to see our press release from Monday that goes into more detail on the case. In addition, here's a good piece (registration required) on the day in court by the New York Times.

Also, be sure to check out the following links for other important information:

NVRI's challenge to Buckley v. Valeo

A national NVRI survey showing 87% of respondents support spending limits.

Keep on!

[Wilms]

30. CO: County voting officials boxed in

County voting officials boxed in

Voids in 2 state posts add to anxiety over August primaries

By George Merritt
Denver Post Staff Writer

03/02/2006 1:00 AM MST

Two key election officials in the secretary of state's office have either stepped down or will soon, adding to anxiety among county election officials as they scramble to prepare for the August primaries.

Elections director William "Billy" Compton announced Wednesday that he plans to leave March 17.

And the county clerk and recorders learned Friday that Patricia Frederick, the director in charge of compliance with the federal Help America Vote Act, stepped down in the middle of the already tardy process for certifying voting machines.

Those county officials were concerned about a timeline for purchasing election equipment that left little - if any - margin for error.

The secretary of state's office said Wednesday it will try to make the transition seamless, despite Frederick's departure.

snip

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3560565