GA: SoS, Cathy (Blackwell) Cox, Violated Voter Rights, Judge Rules

[Wilms]

Georgia Secretary of State Cox Violated Voter Rights, Judge Rules

By Sarah Epting

3-10-06

(APN) ATLANTA – A Senior US District Judge found that Georgia Secretary of State (SOS), Cathy Cox, violated voter rights by undermining voter registration drives, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. Cox, a Democrat who is currently running for Georgia Governor, is already under criticism for her stewardship of the state’s electronic voting contract with Diebold.

"The Court finds and hereby DECLARES that the rejection of voter registration applications on the ground that they were submitted in a bundle, or by someone who was not a registrar or deputy registrar, violated the NVRA ," the Consent Decree states.

Meanwhile, a new Georgia Senate Bill 590 introduced by Democratic Minority Leader Gloria Butler would further codify the rights of private groups to conduct voter registration throughout the state. However, private groups always had that right, the courts have recently found.

"These volunteers drive our voter registration in this state and we should make it easier, not harder, on them to help Georgia citizens complete the voter registration process," Butler said during a Feburary 24, 2006, press conference on voter rights sponsored by US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).

snip

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/2925/1/32/

[mom cat]

1. This is a great ruling! May there be many more!

[Kurovski]

2. Kick.

And "R"

[JunkYardDogg]

3. Systematic Demographic Disenfranchisement

It is an integral part of the plan to subvert and control elections and manipulate the vote

[Amaryllis]

4. Further proof that election integrity subversion is bi-partisan. Another

DINO on Diebold's payroll.

[Wilms]

5. Cox gets money from Diebold?

:wow: Wow.

I know she's one of Diebold's biggest cheerleaders. I know she opposes VVPAT. I know she lent her smiling face for a Diebold brochure. I know she won't give the public access to election records.

And knowing that, I certainly, and legitimately, wonder if anything else is going on.

But her being on the payroll, or I guess you mean "on the take", that I didn't know.
Come on, now. Spill the links. :bounce:

[BeFree]

6. Links?

Yeah, right. That's absurd. If she is being paid, and it appears they could be, it won't be linked until she's arrested. And with the press in the pockets of the big companies, and the big companies in the pockets of the corrupt politicos, the arrest may never happen.

With all the big money floating around one can rest assured that if direct payments are not being made, favors are being distributed. Heck, I bet they even pay some DU'ers to keep track of us, eh?

On edit: Found a link you might like:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

[Wilms]

7. I read a lot about Delay and Abramoff before they had pictures taken.

I was excited to see allegations of Cox being on the take with Diebold because it would be better evidence of corruption than the items I listed, or even the link you provide, (though it would be fun to see all the receipts from that event).

Frankly, however, I'd be surprised if she was on Diebold's payroll. Does that make me bad/suspect?

You see, to me, it's more likely Diebold's on her payroll. She's running for Governor. Logically, I would also have to include the possibility of a simple quid pro quo.

Is it wrong of me to consider these other ideas, BF? :shrug:

[Amaryllis]

8. I meant it metaphorically. She is another election official who fervently

defends Diebold and just as fervently fights paper records on the paperless Diebold machines. And no, I don't have a link. But I am in touch with election reform activists from GA who have worked their butts off trying to get paper in GA and have been stonewalled by her at every turn. You probably have read some past threads to this effect on DU. While I respect your wanting accuracy, I cannot always access links without a lot of searching and I don't have time for that, and sometimes there aren't links. So I guess it gets down to: do you trust those who have repeatedly reported what I said above, who have worked directly on this issue of trying to get verifiable elections in GA?

[Wilms]

9. I'm being a bit stern, so take it with a grain of salt, Amarylliss.

My comment was largely in response to the ideas we're currently discussing on this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=416356&mesg_id=416356

The claim that Cox has acted in a manner contrary to transparent election is well documented. For that, I wouldn't need a link.

But that's not what you wrote. You said she was on the "payroll". THAT I would need a link for.

And, considering there may not be a link to that I question such practice.

I consider inaccurate information to be counter-productive. That Cox has such a nasty rap sheet already should give sufficient opportunity to reasonably call her integrity into question.

Instead, what you have done, and do, is posted information that could reasonably be used to call DU's and your integrity into question. Given your significant contributions, let alone that of other DU posters, that seems rather unfortunate.

Instead of posting untrue info you could have simply, accurately, and informatively, cited as you did in the post to which I now respond.

As a side note, there are many posts claiming the AAPD has taken money from Diebold with the implication that it was used to buy them off. Turns out, that notion is assailed by the fact that the money in question was a settlement over an ATM lawsuit that went down BEFORE Diebold got into the voting machine business.

I'm not saying AAPD's relationship with Diebold shouldn't raise eyebrows, but I, for a whole year, had been walking around with information unsupported by facts. Again, unfortunate.

[Amaryllis]

10. YOu are right that I shouldn't have said she is on their payroll. People

wouldn't know I meant it metaphorically. I would guess that she is profiting in some way from her relationship with Diebold; how else does it make sense? But I can't prove it.

[Wilms]

11. I think suspicion is reasonable, as I outlined in the post above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=416478&mesg_id=416757