So what IS the CA-50 case about?

[Bill Bored]

I signed a petition for a recount because people took voting machines home and I'd like to know where we stand.

Last I heard, they said we could get a recount for a 100,000 bucks. Are we trying to bargain 'em down now or what?

What were the results of the 1% hand count required by CA law?

Did they count any absentees by hand?

I see some of our CA DUers want to vote absentee instead of using DREs with paper trails. Wouldn't this mean their ballots would never be audited?

Or did they pass a law saying absentees have to be included in the audits?

I find the situation in CA to be VERY CONFUSING sometimes, so will some please explain?

Thanks!

[Bill Bored]

1. I guess no one can answer any of my questions. nt

[lonestarnot]

2. I sure can't. Wish I could. Have you called your Secretary of

State's office? Why don't you pose the question in GD?

[Bill Bored]

4. For one thing, in my state, the SoS has nothing to do with elections

and that's the way it should be! It's absurd to have one person from one party in charge of all that stuff.

Secondly, this is the Election Forum, so someone should be able to answer these basic questions about the case. They are soliciting funds and all, so they should know at least some of the facts.

So far, all I know is that the Republican, Bilbray, who replaced Duke Conningham was reported to have won with about a 4% margin and the poll workers were allowed to take the voting machines home before the election. And oh yeah, they can be hacked, but that's nothing new.

So got anything else?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kster]

14. I'm kster and I supported this message!! Where did it go?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. makes you wonder, doesn't it?

how there is a mad fund raising effort,
to recount an election that was for a "temporary" position
that ends in November.

And you get cursed out for asking what its all about.

:shrug:

[lonestarnot]

8. curses to his snarky impatient reply.

Yeah apparently you need to wonder.

[Melissa G]

3. well you can pm landshark or emlev

I've not been following it so I can't help much..
I did post an article on BDF's in your honor, though....

[Bill Bored]

5. That's way cool Melissa G! BDFs RULE (in more ways than one)! nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

9. here is an article that may help you - "famed" election attorney

there is some background on the case here, and alot
about the "famed" attorney.

July 25, 2006 at 15:45:21

? Famed election attorney Paul Lehto selected for election challenge in San Diego

by Press release

http://www.opednews.com
Famed Election Attorney Paul Lehto Selected For Election Challenge
To head Contentious Busby-Bilbray Recount Effort in California's
50th Congressional District

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_press_re_060725_famed_election_attor.htm

He's "famed" ?

[Bill Bored]

10. Well not much there either. Just that they want a recount.

I don't think that's unreasonable, but I'd like some more facts.

Supposedly they do audits in CA, so what did the audit show? Granted it may not be enough, but it's a start. Suppose there was a discrepancy? That could be grounds for a recount already, couldn't it?

I'm just askin'!

I already said I hope Lehto wins the case. I'd just like some more facts. I've been asking about this election from the beginning and nobody seems to know jack.

[JimDandy]

11. The deadline for filing a recount in that race has passed. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

19. I'm all for court battles, but have a question and comment

I am all for the various strategies to get attention to
the electronic voting problem, as well as providing solutions.

But what is the case going to be about?

So, is it correct that there will not be a recount?

Are the candidates the only parties who could
request a recount?

Just wondering.

In November, the very same seats are up for election again, right?

I hope that whatever this is, that the case does well, but what is it?

Is it being fast tracked since it is an election matter?

Or is it being handled as a consumer protection issue?

[Land Shark]

15. This release is unauthorized & I wouldn't describe self as "famed"

but if I am it would only be thanks to my critics, to whom I owe an intense debt of gratitude for keeping the buzz going.

The case will likely be filed Friday and a detailed press release and pleadings will come out. I'm sorry that my time for repartee or play or informing others is limited here on DU until then.

[troubleinwinter]

17. "unauthorized"?

You did tell us on Monday: "There will be a big one on Scoop. More transparency."

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. ?? the press release has nothing to do with Scoop, does it?

"Famed election attorney" in the headline does seem like a big stretch, but otherwise the press release seems OK. Sort of weird that it doesn't seem to be attributed to anyone in particular -- I assume that the original release did have contact info?

I take some exception to the statement that Lehto and Hoffman's Snohomish analysis is "highly regarded." Among political scientists, it has generally been ignored. It might help if Lehto and Hoffman made the appendices available. As it stands, perhaps their most interesting contention is uninterpretable, because there is no way to tell which precincts they identified as having "(p)roblems of switched voting or machines freezing up," nor specifically how they identified those precincts (reportedly 50 out of 148). So far, it is hardly a "blueprint model for evaluating election fraud." But of course that has no evident bearing on the CA-50 case.

[troubleinwinter]

21. sigh

Yes, it has been frustrating to try to find any backup for "famed election attorney",I have only found one dismissed elections case that he litigated.

It seems that his reputation preceeds him.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. giggle

Mad as I am at him, I will point out again that it's just a press release headline, but yeah, it is kind of funny.

The exit poll debate is littered with "prominent statisticians" and "survey expert(s)" who aren't so much. I used to take it as poetic license, but after encountering people here who will tell me that I have been refuted by experts but don't even pretend that they can tell me how, I've gotten more persnickety about it. Not really a comparable situation. When people claim expertise in the context of the exit poll debate, they are effectively saying 'You should believe me because I am Qualified.' When the press release boasts about Lehto, I think it is attempting to say, 'You should follow this case closely, because it is going to be big news.' I'm not indignant about that.

It's pretty interesting. I have to admit to some annoyance that it doesn't even strike people as strange that the real survey experts aren't lining up to endorse the massive-fraud theory. ('A conspiracy so vast....') I really don't know how to interpret the fact that the real election law experts aren't lining up to represent the CA-50 folks -- but of course that takes a much bigger commitment than simply endorsing a view, so, again, the two aren't really comparable.

[troubleinwinter]

16. "Famed"

The phrase "Famed attorney Paul Lehto" appears to have originally been coined by a Washington blog in April 2005, for which Lehto writes under the name 'botch'.

The Snohomish County, Washington case wasn't litigated by Lehto:

Plaintiffs Wells and Lehto, as citizens and voters, were represented by GORDON EDMUNDS ELDER, PLLC, Randolf Gordon, attorney for Plaintiffs.

The case was dismissed as 'moot'. Maybe they are appealing?


The Kentucky case was dismissed this month:

Published: July 14, 2006 10:33 am

Judge dismisses candidate lawsuit

Special Judge William Cain returned the order Thursday, giving seven reasons why he was dismissing the case. Among his points were that the petitioners did not act within the required time frame and failed to identify a specific allegation.
........

Lehto said he would have to confer with the plaintiffs to determine their plans for appeal or other options they may seek.
........

There were several major legal problems with the suit and Judge Cain found various grounds as to why the suit should be dismissed, Reynolds said. Most important being that the plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted by the court.
http://www.thetimestribune.com/local/local_story_195103349.html

I am unaware of any other elections litigation he's been involved in.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

18. too bad DU doesn't have a "tip jar" n/t

:hi:

[diva77]

12. I will attempt to answer part of your question. Absentee ballots are

supposed to be included in the 1% manual tally. They are supposed to be sorted according to precinct. However, county registrars have taken to deciding themselves whether or not to carry out this requirement as per CA Election Code

15360. During the official canvass of every election in which a
voting system is used, the official conducting the election shall
conduct a public manual tally of the ballots tabulated by those
devices cast in 1 percent of the precincts chosen at random by the
elections official. If 1 percent of the precincts should be less
than one whole precinct, the tally shall be conducted in one precinct
chosen at random by the elections official.
In addition to the 1 percent count, the elections official shall,
for each race not included in the initial group of precincts, count
one additional precinct. The manual tally shall apply only to the
race not previously counted.
Additional precincts for the manual tally may be selected at the
discretion of the elections official.


In some of the exceedingly large counties in CA, registrars sort absentees by ballot type for tabulation, but don't include them in 1% manual tally. In some counties with early voting and absentee, it all becomes one ballot soup, audit free. You could hide a lot of irregularities in the ballot soup. I believe that may have occurred in NM.

I believe that just because you vote absentee, you should not surrender the full security of having your vote, as a member of a precinct, audited, yet that is exactly what seems to be occurring in a number of counties.

[Bill Bored]

13. OK, now wasn't there a bill to force the auditing of the absentees

and early votes? What happened with that?

And how many precincts are in that CD-50? Should be several hundred I would think. Do you know how the audit came out? It's nice that, "Additional precincts for the manual tally may be selected at the discretion of the elections official." Maybe they can be shamed into it in this case?

Thanks for your answers so far.

[rumpel]

23. On the "sleep overs"

ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION 19320-19323



19320. Before preparing a voting machine for any general election,
the elections official shall mail written notice to the chairperson
of the county central committee of at least two of the principal
political parties, stating the time and place where machines will be
prepared. At the specified time one representative of each of the
political parties shall be afforded an opportunity to see that the
machines are in proper condition for use in the election.
The party representatives shall be sworn to perform faithfully
their duties but shall not interfere with the officials or assume any
of their duties. When a machine has been so examined by the
representatives, it shall be sealed with a numbered metal seal. The
representatives shall certify to the number of the machines, whether
all of the counters are set at zero (000), and the number registered
on the protective counter and on the seal.



19321. The elections official shall affix ballot labels to the
machines to correspond with the sample ballot for the election. He
or she shall employ competent persons to assist him or her in
affixing the labels and in putting the machines in order. Each
machine shall be tested to ascertain whether it is operating
properly.



19322. When a voting machine has been properly prepared for an
election, it shall be locked against voting and sealed. After that
initial preparation, a member of the precinct board or some duly
authorized person, other than the one preparing the machines, shall
inspect each machine and submit a written report. The report shall
note the following:
(1) Whether all of the registering counters are set at zero (000),
(2) whether the machine is arranged in all respects in good order
for the election, (3) whether the machine is locked, (4) the number
on the protective counter, (5) the number on the seal. The keys
shall be delivered to the election board together with a copy of the
written report, made on the proper blanks, stating that the machine
is in every way properly prepared for the election.




19323. The elections official shall deliver to the polling place
the supplies necessary to conduct the election, including two sample
ballots, one envelope containing the seal for sealing the machine
after the polls are closed, one envelope for the return of the keys,
and as many copies of the statement of votes cast as are necessary.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=19001-20000&file=19320-19323

It defies logic - that after conducting this examination as prescribed - presumambly done not the night before the election- to send these machines home with pollworkers.

[rumpel]

24. System used in SD

COUNTY VOTING SYSTEMS FOR THE JUNE 6, 2006 PRIMARY ELECTION
As of June 1, 2006

San Diego
Absentee: Diebold AccuVote-OS Optical Scan
Polling Place: Diebold AccuVote-OS Optical Scan & Diebold AccuVote-TSX Touch Screen

Conditional Certification
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/diebold_cert.pdf