Skip to main content

Thanks to resnska, msinla, lorelynn, norm, and so many other members of the DailyKos community for keeping the serious elections problems in California and across America on the front-burner!

As many of you know, there's alarming news in our fight for fair and transparent elections:  California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson entered into an agreement with the Bush Administration's Justice Department last year to implement a statewide voter registration database system that will disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in California.

Please join me in emailing Secretary McPherson now, demanding that he undo his agreement with the Bush Administration and roll back the regulations he adopted to implement it.

The special election to fill the San Diego Congressional seat vacated by Randy "Duke" Cunningham is next week, as well as over 20 municipal elections, and the registration deadline for the June 6 primary is May 22.  We don't have much time!

More below the flip.

More than 14,000 new voter registration and re-registration applications from Los Angeles County alone were recently invalidated under this new stringent set of regulations -- and other counties are seeing similar results.

This is a 43% rejection rate! In fact, virtually all of these applications would have been accepted before Secretary McPherson rolled out his new statewide voter registration database. Typically rejection rates are 1-2%. This is outrageous.

And many of these applications were rejected for trivial matters -- for example, for example, if your last name is "O'Brien," it will not match "O Brien" or "OBrien." A voter who leaves out one digit of her driver's license will be rejected -- even if it's obviously the same person. Plus, technical system errors prevented almost 5% of valid applications from being accepted.

We're talking about thousands of eligible voters, many of whom have been registered for years, being thrown off the voter rolls. Unless they correct these trivial errors with their local registrar, these fellow citizens won't receive sample ballots in the mail, notifying them of their polling places.  They won't receive absentee ballots -- and in some California counties, 30% of voters are permanent absentee voters.  Provisional votes will not be counted unless the voter contacts the registrar before the close of the election canvass.  In other words, it will be much more difficult for voters to get their legitimate vote counted.

Now Secretary McPherson says he will try to get the Legislature to pass a bill to overturn his restrictive, anti-voter regulations.  Why should the people of California wait for the Legislature and Governor to act, with the April 11th special election in San Diego less than a week away and the June 6th primary rapidly approaching, when Secretary McPherson can fix this problem now?  McPherson created this problem -- now he should own up to it, show some leadership, take some responsibility, and fix it.  

That's why I urge you to join me in calling on Secretary McPherson to undo his agreement with the Bush Administration and roll back the regulations that are rejecting tens of thousands of voter registration (and re-registration) applications.

Secretary McPherson must act now.  Please join me in telling Secretary McPherson to solve this problem that he himself created.

-- Debra

P.S.  This morning, I'm chairing a hearing into the voter registration debacle, so I won't be able to respond to your comments right away.  But I'll be back online this afternoon, after the hearing wraps up.  

P.P.S. Also, if you live in California, and if you registered or re-registered to vote after January 1, 2006, please visit to contact your local voter registrar and confirm that you're on the voter rolls.  And email me at if you or anyone you know has experienced problems with their voter registration and has been dumped off the voter rolls.

Originally posted to Senator Debra Bowen on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:33 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for your support (126+ / 0-)

    I'll try to stop by later this afternoon, after my hearing on this voter registration debacle wraps up.

    In the meantime, please email Secretary of State McPherson and urge him to roll back these restrictive, anti-voter regulations:

    -- Debra

    •  Now *this* is the way to post as a politician (58+ / 0-)

      We've been discussing protocols for diaries by politicians.  In this one you have:

      1.  A clear call to action
      1.  Acknowledgement that you'll be back to read comments later.

      I'm not a Californian, so am not much use to your cause, but I'll say "good for you!" instead.

        •  an actual human person (9+ / 0-)

          thanks!  I am an actual human person, and I have to go feed my cats (there are no lions at home) -- but anyone who has a question that did not get answered here can email me.  It's debra at

          I'll be back later for another comment check.

          I read the discussion on politician posts.  Here's the thing I like:  on DailyKos, it's for YOU to decide!

          •  I Met You in Sacramento Last Year (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            You were impressive then and you are VERY IMPRESSIVE now.

            You make this story very plain and easy to understand. I am going to take this to the Napa County Democratic Central Committee and the Democrats of Napa Valley Club and try to get the letter campaign going.

            Could you come to Napa? If we could get you to come, I am sure we could get a crowd gathered. If you can come, please have your staffer contact us through the website ''

            There is a mailing list there -- and it would really make the local parties take notice if your staff contacted them because of a comment on DailyKos.  

            I testified at the sham hearings by a panel selected by Bruce McPherson to get those crooked voting machines approved. My view from listening to the various vendors talk was that the Secretary of State and the vendors just wished we would go away and let them steal our elections in peace.

            During my testimony, I suggested that the University of California has many of the best computer experts in the world, and why can't the State of California fund an Open Source Ballot Marking System? The UC system could manage the hardware, software, etc as a public service and training for the under and graduate students. The Open Voting Consortium has done a lot of good work and combining that with the UC system would be phenominal.

            Under no circumstances should we entrust our democracy to these crooked machines in concert with a statewide voter registrations system managed by DIEBOLD for god's sake.


            "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

            by LeftyLimblog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:17:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  good thing we have a diary monitor (13+ / 4-)

        to tell people how to post. god forbid anyone be original or unique or do something that someone does not like or agree with! too bad we cant all post perfectly accepted diaries. maybe Nancy will read the dKos diary positng rule book tonight to appease her judgemental masses.

        We are the Left. They are the non-Left.

        by leftout on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:37:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfair ... in multiple ways ... (5+ / 0-)

          Considering the (legitimate) uproar re Pelosi in the past 24 hours (or so), with hundreds of comments in Pelosi's diary and two meta diaries (I believe) right now still on the Recommended list, this was an excellent comment w/in the community.

          Now, Senator Bowen might not understand why kfred posted his comment -- but 100s (1000s?) of members of this community do / would.  And, I had virtually the same reaction.

          Re Pelosi -- let her (staff) post these press release diaries as much as they want. I just how the community will grow up and stop recommending them until she engages / learns from / reacts to the community as have -- for example -- Obama, James Webb, Brian Schweitzer, and -- my favorite -- Jimmy Carter.

          Even if done by a supporter / someone working for her, the opening paragraph is wonderful for us in the community.  She is right, there have been a number of Kossacks who have had serious concerns about electoral issues (not just in California) and it is wonderful to see an elected official acknowledging these efforts ...

          9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

          by besieged by bush on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 01:21:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Seems to me... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LeftyLimblog, saucy monkey, lgmcp

      That this is going to get very interesting, and messy.

      The state constitution includes a measure that mandates that every voter's vote must be counted.

      It seems like a lawsuit that claims that in order to get around this, the CASecState has simply purged the rolls would be devasting.

      This looks like a Florida voter roll purge.  Bets that when it's scoured to find out who was purged, we'll find that there are vast numbers of people who are probable Democratic voters?

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:09:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, we know the majority of those Los Angeles (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosette, saucy monkey, Pitin, lgmcp, Ellicatt

        voters are Democrats, simply because Los Angeles County leans Democrat so strongly. Info from Public Policy Institute of California (link is .pdf)

        LA County is one of the most Democratic in the state.
        About half of registered voters (51%) are Democrats, 27 percent are Republicans, and 18 percent are decline-to-state. In November 2000, 53 percent were Democrats, 28 percent were Republicans, and 14 percent were decline-to-state. In the November 2004 general election, LA County voters favored Democratic candidate John F. Kerry over George W. Bush (63% to 36%), while voters in the rest of the state favored Kerry over Bush by a smaller margin (54% to 44%).

      •  California, (0+ / 0-)

        it's the new Florida.

        That was the first thing that ran through my head when I first heard about this.

        I'd love to see the software they used for this,

        if reg. = rep, approve
        if reg. = dem, deny

        10. Magic Imperial Authority. Kitty. Box fan. -driftglass

        by justme on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 06:34:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  State-by-State HAVA compliance (0+ / 0-)

      For those interested in where your state is in the process of creating a single database (and who's helping them do it), go here:

      Meanwhile, Senator:

      From the content of your post, I'm guessing that Diebold doesn't have any connection with the debacle CA is experiencing? I created a bit of a firestorm by quoting BradBlog the other day without that assertion elsewhere.

      And, another note, thanks for putting my name up in pretty lights. Was nifty!

    •  Subpeona McPherson (7+ / 0-)


      I am incredibly proud of you.  Is there any way the Rules committee can expedite the process of granting you subpeona power so you can summon McPherson, swear him in and grill him in front of your committee?  What he is doing is unacceptable and un-American.  I would say that you may even start thinking about initiating impeachment proceedings against Secretary McPherson.

    •  Individual voters should sue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      majcmb1, kurt

      Whenever, in a proceeding instituted under this subsection any official of a State or subdivision thereof is alleged to have committed any act or practice constituting a deprivation of any right or privilege secured by subsection (a) of this section, the act or practice shall also be deemed that of the State and the State may be joined as a party defendant and, if, prior to the institution of such proceeding, such official has resigned or has been relieved of his office and no successor has assumed such office, the proceeding may be instituted against the State.

      Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of State law or the action of any State officer or court, an applicant so declared qualified to vote shall be permitted to vote in any such election. The Attorney General shall cause to be transmitted certified copies of such order to the appropriate election officers. The refusal by any such officer with notice of such order to permit any person so declared qualified to vote to vote at an appropriate election shall constitute contempt of court.

      TITLE 42  CHAPTER 20  SUBCHAPTER I  § 1971. Voting rights

      (a) Race, color, or previous condition not to affect right to vote; uniform standards for voting qualifications; errors or omissions from papers; literacy tests; agreements between Attorney General and State or local authorities; definitions

      Its also international law

      International law sets out basic principles for electoral democracy, including the right of citizens to vote. Under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for example, every citizen has the right to vote and that right may not be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and other enumerated categories or to “unreasonable restrictions

      My understanding is that any citizen deprived of their right to vote for ostensibly race-neutral voting barriers—e.g., literacy (not spelling your name in the same way; ie; first and last, middle and last, first, middle initial and last) and property tests, (requiring a drivers license implies requiring ownership of an automobile) poll taxes, (equity tax on automobile ownership) grandfather clauses and criminal disenfranchisement provisions, can sue for its reinstatemnet either individually or as a class action suit.

      An estimated 4 million Americans have lost their right to vote due to felony convictions. Only Maine and Massachusetts don't have such laws, but still thats not an equal right to vote.

      A disproportionate number of people with Felony convictions are poor, minority voters.

      The exclusion of convicted felons from the vote took on new significance after the Civil War and passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gave blacks the right to vote. Southern opposition to black suffrage led to the decision to use numerous ostensibly race-neutral voting barriers—e.g., literacy and property tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses and criminal disenfranchisement provisions—with the explicit intent of keeping as many blacks as possible from being able to vote. Although laws excluding criminals from the vote had existed in the South previously, “between 1890 and 1910, many Southern states tailored their criminal disenfranchisement laws, along with other voting qualifications, to increase the effect of these laws on black citizens.”5 Crimes that triggered disenfranchisement were written to include crimes blacks supposedly committed more frequently than whites and to exclude crimes whites were believed to commit more frequently. For example, in South Carolina, “among the disqualifying crimes were those to which [the Negro] was especially prone: thievery, adultery, arson, wife-beating, housebreaking, and attempted rape. Such crimes as murder and fighting, to which the white man was as disposed as the Negro, were significantly omitted from the list.”6 In 1901 Alabama lawmakers—who openly stated that their goal was to establish white supremacy—included a provision in the state constitution that made conviction of crimes of “moral turpitude” the basis for disenfranchisement.7


      International law sets out basic principles for electoral democracy, including the right of citizens to vote. Under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for example, every citizen has the right to vote and that right may not be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and other enumerated categories or to “unreasonable restrictions.”72 As a party to the ICCPR, the United States has accepted its provisions as binding on both federal and state governments as the law of the land.73

      The U.N. Human Rights Committee, which reviews adherence to the ICCPR, has affirmed that Article 25 “lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent of the people” and thatrestrictions on the right to vote should only be based on grounds that are “objective and reasonable.”74 Acknowledging the existence of criminal disenfranchisement laws, the committee has stated that “[i]f conviction for an offence is the basis for suspending the right to vote, the period of such suspension should be proportionate to the offence and the sentence.”75 It has consistently frowned on and tried to limit the reach of criminal disenfranchisement laws that it has reviewed.76

      Although the Human Rights Committee has not addressed itself to criminal disenfranchisement laws in the United States,77 there is little doubt it would conclude that laws excluding ex-convicts from voting for life are unreasonable and disproportionate. A strong argument can also be made on similar grounds that laws depriving all persons of the right to vote while in prison, on probation or on parole—regardless of the underlying offense—are also inconsistent with Article 25. The international law scholar Karl Josef Partsch, for example, flatly rejects blanket criminal disenfranchisement provisions, asserting that an exclusion from the vote may be reasonable only if it “has been pronounced by a judge for a certain time, in connection with punishment for some particular offense, for instance those connected with elections or for high treason....”78

      The racially disproportionate impact of disenfranchisement laws in the United States is also inconsistent with the principles of non-discrimination contained in the ICCPR and in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), an international treaty adopted for the purposeof more effectively combating race-based discrimination that the United States ratified in 1994.79 Article 25 of the ICCPR specifically enjoins racial discrimination with regard to electoral rights.80 CERD also requires states parties to guarantee, without distinction as to race, color or national or ethnic origin, “[p]olitical rights, in particular the right to participate in elections—to vote and to stand for election—on the basis of universal and equal suffrage,...”81 CERD wisely does not impose the requirement of discriminatory intent for a finding of discrimination. It requires states parties to eliminate laws or practices which may be race-neutral on their face but which have “the purpose or effect” of restricting rights on the basis of race. Regardless therefore, of whether they were enacted with racial animus, U.S. criminal disenfranchisement laws appear to be precisely the kind of laws condemned by CERD: they unnecessarily and unjustifiably create significant racial disparities in the curtailment of an important right.82

      72 Article 25 reads, “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; © To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.” The legislative history of Article 25 indicates that the ICCPR’s framers considered voting restrictions based on age, mental capacity, and minimum residency requirements to be reasonable. Criminal disenfranchisement was hardly mentioned. At the time the ICCPR was drafted, electoral democracy was not practiced by many countries, and barriers to voting that today are widely considered illegitimate were prevalent—e.g., exclusion of ethnic groups, women, illiterates. Interestingly, the U.S. delegate mentioned the exclusion of illiterates in the U.S. as an example of a legitimate restriction—a practice which is now unconstitutional in the U.S. and which undoubtedly would no longer be deemed reasonable under a contemporary understanding of democracy. E/CN.4/SR.364, at 14.

      Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH

      by rktect on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 03:24:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is the way to do it (19+ / 0-)

    Good post, with notice that she won't be able to answer right away, but will be back later.

    BTW, I wrote Sec. McPherson about this issue and essentially got a form letter back saying not to worry, everything was okay.  Then I got really worried.

    "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

    by NearlyNormal on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:36:33 AM PDT

  •  Thanks Ms Bowen (6+ / 0-)

    I have done the phonecalls,sent both email and snailmail to everyone I can think of in the last couple weeks. Keep fighting the good fight. We shall overcome.

    -8.63 -7.28 Vote+$.01 I will vote Dem., but in protest and support.

    by OneCrankyDom on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:37:07 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, Senator (5+ / 0-)

    Done and done.

    A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

    by Webster on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:37:47 AM PDT

  •  CA Dems, Vote Bowen for CA Sec of State (12+ / 0-)

    Debra Bowen Rocks!  She's been dedicated to the accuracy and honesty of voting for years.  Plus she has a great record as a CA state senator.  She has a primary challenger in June.  Join the many grassroots organizations who support Bowen.

  •  How do we get the country (0+ / 0-)

    to focus on big picture issues such as this? Electoral reform is desperately needed everywhere. Thanks for taking this issue on in California.

    •  Let's start publicly insisting that the SAT test (6+ / 0-)

      policies match the voter registration policies. Snark it way, way up.  

      We can all write Letters to the Editor insisting that the next year's crop of SAT test takers be purged and de-registered unless an EXACTLY matching Motor Vehicle record exists. Otherwise, purge 'em!  Oh, and purged test takers will NOT be notified that they've bumped, or be eligible any refund of their hefty registration fee unless they make contact to inquire.

      Too bad if all those 16 and 17 year old students don't have driver's licenses yet.  After all, if they want to take a college test they should be smart enough to take a driver's test.  And so what if they can't afford a car yet?  They should at least check in and get a photo ID, how else are they going to prove their identity when stopped by the agent of Homeland Security?  They have to show a little responsibility!

      After all, we shouldn't balk at ruining a few hundred thousand kids' futures.  It's not big deal compared to letting the Bushites continue their global destabilization.  

      The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function -- Edward Teller.

      by lgmcp on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:14:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There oughta be a law... (31+ / 0-)

    which requires the voter registrar to inform the applicant that their application was rejected and the reason why it was rejected.  Why hasn't the Legislature required this?

    •  You mean there ISN'T? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Theoretically, I could show up at a polling place and be informed that I cannot vote? And that at that moment there would be no recourse?

      These are the kind of loopholes that will ensure a Republican victory in November.

      When Delay used the term "Democrats will steal my seat" he was speaking of his own party's tactics.

  •  while we're at it.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saucy monkey, lgmcp, Ellicatt

    let's work to pass H.R. 550 so we can ensure election integrity!!
    Click here to do your part!!!

    This is literally THE most important thing right now!

  •  You might consider crossposting this... (14+ / 0-)

    at Calitics, a California-centric blog with a growing base of support.

  •  I called the San Diego County ROV (7+ / 0-)

    The lady there has not heard about this.
    She checked up on my registration and it was still there.

    I asked her who can change the database and she said many people can.

    I got in a jab or two at McPherson and his motives and thanked her for her help.

  •  reminder - Not just California (6+ / 0-)

    Is affected by computerization of voter registration databases.  This is being rushed out in many states because of HAVA

    We need to check with our own states to make sure the same thing is not happening close to home.

    no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible

    by biscobosco on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:49:09 AM PDT

  •  I got a card in the mail (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MissLaura, saucy monkey, Ellicatt

    saying that I'd changed my address, and warning me that I may not receive election materials.

    Which is odd, as I'd confirmed my voter registration last year at the county registrar's office.

    Looks like it's time for another visit. If I've been dropped from the rolls, I'm going to be pissed.

  •  Is there no constable-type office we could report (0+ / 0-)

    Is there an office that he should be reported to?

    Under what statute can 2 people- in this case- the Resident and the SOB- you take your pick which is which- change who gets to vote?

  •  email done, thanks Sen. Bowen (8+ / 0-)

    you're getting my support for your bid for Secretary of State, thanks to your work over the last year for accountable and recountable elections in California.

    Kossacks from other states -- don't think this database "disenfranchisement" problem is limited to California -- thanks to a comment by HudsonValleyMark in renska's diary, we know (link is to a .pdf) that the nine states where an "exact match" was agreed to are:

    CA, LA, MA, MD, ME, MO, MS, SD, and TX

    Maine, we know, has already abandoned a failed attempt to build a state-wide voter registration database, and is prepared to be out of compliance with HAVA,  on the theory that -- according to Maine's sec'y of state:

    "The worst-case scenario is not being out of compliance with federal law," he said. "The worst-case scenario is having 503 town clerks frantically try to call all at once saying, 'I can't let anybody in my town vote because I can't pull them up on the list.'"

    •  Hello again (state-by-state HAVA compliance) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennifer poole, chimpy

      I've posted that link you located upthread. I think it's a valuable one for everyone...

      Thanks again, for your collaboration the other day. (I have to admit to being curious as to whether my email to her, asking for confirmation of the Diebold claim, contributed to her decision to post on the site...)

    •  email and download paper version (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennifer poole

      Great combination, as the paper one gets noticed better. Even a cc for local representatives, in .rft download.

      But just one suggestion for the Senator's office: Could the letter-o-matic machine also address the letters? If we have #10 windowed envelopes, we could just sign, stamp and mail.

      Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

      by chimpy on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 01:08:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Having spent the last 5 years (6+ / 0-)

    as a CA voter and resident of Orange County, I felt well qualified to weigh in on this LOUDLY, and I sent my angry email to Mr. McPherson, even though I live in Denver now. This is ugly. I hope something can be done SOON to rectify this travesty.

    I've donated to your campaign, Debra.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:00:54 PM PDT

  •  remember FL (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ms in la, Heiuan, boofdah, Ellicatt, nogamez

    Dear Mr. McPherson
    Although i am not a ca resident, i am very familiar with voter roll
    problems which arose after florida initated statewide databases. Thousands of
    Legitimate voters were removed from the rolls, and were unable to have their
    votes counted in the 2000 election. The exact same problems occurred in 2004,
    even using a different company to create and administer the database. Please do
    not allow the same thing to happen to CA voters. Allow the local election boards
    to do their jobs in maintaing more accurate voter rolls.
    roberta watson
    hastings fl

    Bush/Cheney04 Because it takes 8 years to Destroy the Country Download GeckosAgainstBS song

    by demnomore on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:02:12 PM PDT

  •  Man (0+ / 0-)

    one of the greatest posts ever by a politician.

    Thank You for posting and getting this on the Recommended list.

    If you like what I have to say, please contribute $5-$20 to my Act Blue page

    by Pitin on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:07:32 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like Arnie's team is working well together (0+ / 0-)

    Arnie's using the same team that Bush used for his campaign.  UGH!

    "A child miseducated is a child lost" John F. Kennedy

    by Pam from Calif on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:16:01 PM PDT

  •  Here's the real question: (0+ / 0-)

    What percentage of the dumped voters were Democrats/Republicans?  Who wants to bet that there's a disproportionate number of Dems that were rejected?  (And yes, I know the Bushies are clever enough to counter with, "Of course more Dems were's California, after all."  But I would still love to know the numbers.)

  •  Californian or NOT- (6+ / 0-)

    Please contact McPherson, this is about the 55 electoral votes that will go towards YOUR next President as well, all states should be interested, as Rove has been, in the electoral activities of the Golden State.

    What I've found to be a good tone lately in writing is-- to let the official know that the numbers of people now informed and on board with what's been going on behind the scenes in elections has grown exponentially.  That we are no longer in the dark and have emerged from the media blackout on the issue thanks to some ordinary citizens who spent their free time getting the word out to the rest of the people.  They can hear the pitter patter of footsteps coming up from behind them.  Steps of an angry mob-- and there is something about that concept that puts formerly cool criminal customers on guard.  Minimally, they will be off their game in November, and looking over their shoulders more frequently. We need to be there when they look. Vigilant, observing and recording.

    If you're not familiar with Parallel Elections, they are a low cost, low tech way to reinstate some public oversight and checks into the system --

    See this link

    It's one way to inject some accountability at the polls.

    And thank you once again Senator Bowen for all you do for us. You are a true gift to the state of California!  Thanks for the mention in the diary as well!  

    Who's Counting?

  •  My letter to McPherson (8+ / 0-)

    Dear Secretary McPherson,

    The processes currently underway for California's so-called voter registration datbase are absolutely disgraceful.  This is a DEREGISTRATION database, and as such violates every spirit of the public duty you hold.  

    A 43% rejection rate where a few percent is the norm is totally unnecessary.  It appears to be evidence of a bold and shocking plan to deliberately disenfranchise huge blocks of the population. I have database expertise and am very familiar with the problems of reconciling conflicting records in large, untidy data sets. It can be done, and done far, far better.  If Diebold doesn't have the expertise to handle the job, their contract to do it should be rescinded for non-performance.

    This is not just a California matter.  The nation is watching your actions, Mr. McPherson.  You most roll back those regulations immediately and reinstate those voters.  With the June primaries effectively here, legislative solutions are inadequate.  

    It's primarily a produral mess, not a legislative one, and YOU are responsible for those procedures.  

    The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function -- Edward Teller.

    by lgmcp on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:28:09 PM PDT

    •  They are ALL Deregistration (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Databases - if you ask me.

      It started in Florida in 2000 with the Choicepoint purge lists.  

      Now we have HAVA to thank for federally mandated purge lists in every state.

      That's how they'll function, just like the Choicepoint lists - error-riddled, crazy mismatches that will invalidate tens of thousands of registrations.  Compiled by for-profit companies, who may end up selling the personal information compiled to others for a profit!

      •  Hmmm, There Seems to Be a Naming Convention (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "Clear Skies" -- More Pollution

        "Healthy Forests" -- Leave No Forest Behind

        "Help American Vote Act" -- Deregister Voters.

        I am beginning to detect a system.


        "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

        by LeftyLimblog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:38:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Naming for housing subdivisions (0+ / 0-)
          has always been to call them after what used to be there.  Examples:  Shady Acres, Foxes Run, Sagebrush Circle, Los Arboles,etcetera.  

          Charitably, perhaps it starts out as simple nostalgia.  But it ends up horribly ironic, and it's all for profit.  

          Then from there it's a slippery slope Clear Skies, etc.. per your excellent comment, all the way down to War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery,

          The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function -- Edward Teller.

          by lgmcp on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:38:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for your Leadership! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, saucy monkey
    Please also recall the the California Election Protection Network wrote up a position statement on best practices for implementation of HAVA's requirement for Centralized Voter Registration.  

    The EAC had asked for input because they hadn't yet decided whether to recommend a bottom-up or top-down data feed.  It seems obvious that a bottom-up (county to state) arrangement would reduce the magnitude of any abusive global purges and provide local purview.  

    The position statement also has some other great ideas about notification before purging, etc.

    Perhaps you'd like to check it out:

    Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

    by Einsteinia on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:32:35 PM PDT

  •  This will backfire badly. (6+ / 0-)

    Here in Washington, we had hysterical Republicans challenging around 1,000 voter registration cards in King County. Their guy, who was supposed to give Ron Sims a run for his money, lost by a huge margin, as even Republicans were p----d off at these tactics.

    Democrats are about voter participation. Republicans are about voter suppression.

  •  Having trouble registering (3+ / 0-)

    My husband and I moved from TX to CA in January. We registered to vote in Jan 18th when we got new drivers licenses. We have never received anything in the mail indicating we're registered. So, I thought we'd re-apply using the website. I requested a voter's registration form, and one month later, I've never heard anything. How can I check to see that we're registered? Shouldn't we receive a card in the mail? Why os this SO hard??????? Thanks for the diary.

  •  I finally got my card two days ago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I registerd in Feb and just this week got my registration card, so it's been a bit slow. But in the meantime I was vigilant with the Clerk's office during the entire process.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:48:09 PM PDT

  •  What about the other 38%? (0+ / 0-)

    Senator Bowen,

    You state:

    • More than 14,000 new voter registration and re-registration applications from Los Angeles County alone were recently invalidated under this new stringent set of regulations
    • This is a 43% rejection rate!
    • And many of these applications were rejected for trivial matters ... Technical system errors prevented almost 5% of valid applications from being accepted.

    Do you know what the other 38% of rejected voters represents? Who are they and why were they rejected?

    Enjoy reading The Proxies, a free crime thriller in short story form.

    by maynard on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:50:33 PM PDT

    •  they were rejected because of 'exact match' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      requirements negotiated with the U.S. DOJ by Sec'y McPherson -- see the original LA Times story(I'm pretty sure it was the LA Times that broke this story) with details re: how under the "exact match" requirement:

      Voter information is checked against records with the federal government and state motor vehicles department. Under an agreement negotiated by McPherson and the U.S. Justice Department, California is one of nine states that use the standard of an "exact match," in which the records must be the same to the letter, according to a national survey by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit group in New York City. Thus, "Robert Smith" and "Rob Smith" would not be considered a match.

      As I understand it, McPherson has since said the state records aren't required to be an "exact match" -- but if federal records (including the IRS? this I don't know) differ in the slightest from the name you use to update your voter registration after you move, or when you first register to vote, your voter registration will be rejected.

      Counties ARE supposed to contact voters to help work out these problems, but they're already predicting they won't be able to get to all the new voter registrations turned in near deadline (see the LA Times story for quote from Alameda County official).

  •  LA County (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saucy monkey

    I looked at the website, and LA County wants $1.50 and a written request for registration confirmation.  Has anyone tried calling to get verbal confirmation?  I'd like to know before I spend an hour in phone menu hell before being told I have to make the request in writing along with $1.50.

    Maybe this is all about LA county needing some quick cash...

    The only real difference between the Sane and the Insane, in this world, is the Sane have the power to have the Insane locked up. -- HST

    by Elmer McJimsey on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:57:01 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for this wonderful diary (6+ / 0-)

    Another community member alerted me to your campaign just a couple of weeks ago.  I've been doing some reading an am very impressed.  I'm glad to see that you're participating in this very important issue.  I'm concerned that I've been dumped because my middle name on my license is spelled out, while it's always been my initial on the voter rolls.  Sadly, McPherson's office doesn't seem to care or want to invite the voters to be able to correct this or even find out if they've been dumped.  I've called almost daily over the last 9 days, to find out if they've developed some way for me to learn if my voter's rights are in jeopardy.  No solution and no acknowledgement from the office of the internal screw-up there.  

    So many people complain, always talk about change yo but what's your contribution to life?-J5

    by fabooj on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:58:00 PM PDT

  •  I have called and gone to Sacramento (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LeftyLimblog, saucy monkey

    with a DVD of a talk by Avi Rubin about voting machines . I also have been carrying voter reg cards and registering people to vote for 30 years. Just called my ROV office to make sure I'm still on the rolls. I know I registered with my middle initial and my CDL has my middle name spelled out. Since I haven't re-registered since Jan 1st, I am still on the rolls, but the clerk did want to add my middle name to the file to make sure I stay there. He also told me they changed the voter reg forms Jan 1st, so I should come down with mine to trade them for the new ones.

    Looks like rejecting valid new and re-registrations may be just the beginning of a purge that will involve all of us when they check current registrations against the database.

    I know Kevin Shelley was a jerk, but I had a terrible feeling when the thugs went after him in particular. It was just when he looked like he was going to do the right thing about Diebold. They went after Don Perata (and a couple of his kids), President Pro Tem of the State Senate at the same time. Don's office was involved in the paper trail legislation at the time they went after him with the FBI. Fortunately that seems to have died a quiet death and Don is still there (and his kids are, too). (Remove tinfoil hat-or maybe not.)

    -9.25 -9.18 Barbara Lee and Howard Dean speak for me

    by laurak on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:58:51 PM PDT

  •  SS's office denied they were using an exact match (5+ / 0-)

    I was extremely upset about this last week & called the Sec. of State's office. They claimed they were not doing exact matching and were not tossing people off the rolls. I haven't had time to follow up - been tempted to drive up to Sacramento for these hearings but I don't have the time to take off.

    Senator if they're really not doing this, they should be on the record saying so. And if they are doing it and lying about it to people, they should be run out of the state.

    Speak Out, California! Energizing progressives from Crescent City to Calexico

    by da on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 12:58:58 PM PDT

    •  what McPherson said at his press conference (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      was that STATE records (i.e, CA Dept. of Motor Vehicles) were not required to be an "exact match," but the federal records are required to be exact. Whether this is true, I don't know -- it certainly wasn't reported that way by the LA Times.

      What federal records they use to check against is still unknown to me. IRS? Social Security? military? Medicare?

  •  $5000 fine for mistake in registering! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ignacio Magaloni, kurt

    Moved to Ok from Pa,age 57,voted since 21,never had a problem before.
    Now for the first time ever, I received a post card that states that any error on my registration will result in fine of $5000,so if I forget to cross a "t" or dot an "i" or mailing address irregulatity ...... Aaaargh. Risk the fine to vote and then have the vote "switched" by Diebold is not worth it.

  •  voters must verify registration (4+ / 0-)

    It shouldn't be, but it is.  Everyone must assume the responsibility to verify registration.

    Can you imagine hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people calling their elections office because they can't trust the system?  That'll make some news and force change.

    There ought to be a massive public awareness campaign...public service announcements on radio, tv, and in print.


    by LeighAnn on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 01:06:03 PM PDT

  •  Great job Debra! (0+ / 0-)

    I've been reading about you here, and here, and about California's voting problems here.

    One nation, under surveillance, no liberty, nor justice for us

    by SisTwo on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 01:10:26 PM PDT

  •  What I want to know... (0+ / 0-)

    Senator Bowen,

    Thanks for posting this. I had planned to diary this subject, but wanted to add another angle, as well.

    First McPherson certified the Diebold machines, despite evidence that they are easily hacked... and now this purge of the voter roles?

    This isn't a question for you, really. It's a rhetorical question to bring something to the light of my fellow Kossacks:

    What I want to know is... what are the California Teacher's Association doing endorsing Bruce McPherson?

    The California Teachers Association this weekend endorsed Bruce McPherson for California Secretary of State.  This action happened at the quarterly meeting of the CTA State Council of Education, which is comprised of nearly 800 democratically elected teacher representatives from across the state and is CTA's highest governing body.

    I'm not a California teacher, but I've been a strong supporter of the CTA. I walked precincts and phone-banked to defeat Prop 74, 75 and 76 in solidarity with them.  I was proud of their role, and that of the nurses, in challenging Gov. Schwarzenegger. (I will never get used to that title...)

    It's bad enough that the CTA didn't endorse you, Senator.  It's worse that they endorsed McPherson.  I feel as bad as I did when the AARP endorsed Medicare D... and for much the same reason.

    We are the ones we've been waiting for.
    I'm a grassroots candidate.

    by Malacandra on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 01:10:39 PM PDT

    •  I can answer it in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      part Malacandra.  The CTA interviewed all of the candidates brought the information to the 800 teacher representatives at their meeting down in LA last weekend.  They voted to endorse McClintock.

      This is from their press release:

      "Bruce McPherson will ensure the integrity of the voting process and the rights of all voters in California," said Barbara E. Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association. "Throughout his career Secretary McPherson has been a strong supporter of public education, schools and students."

      Beyond that there is not much else CTA is saying about the endorsement.

      Visit the BetterCA community, log in and get blogging.

      by Alliance for a Better California on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 01:33:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe you have this guy all wrong? (0+ / 0-)

      You are wrong about the diebold machines being "easily hacked" so perhaps you are misinformed about other issues surrounding this guy.

      I assume you see him as another Blackwell or Harris, he may very well be but there is nothing afaik on the record of him acting shady. In fact this "purge" has received wide spread msm coverage and in enough time that the conspiracy skeptics can justifiably argue that McPherson has done a reasonable job trying to both inform and allow responsible citizens to vote.

      Here are two interesting links...

      Each rejected registration means extra work for county election officials, who have to personally contact each voter, by mail or by telephone, to collect the needed information.

      "We've got to try and verify every one of those registrations,'' said Mikel Haas, the San Diego County registrar. "There's no way someone can get on the statewide voter file without it.''
      On Wednesday, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson announced a monthlong effort to educate voters about the new registration rules. When asked about the county registration woes, he said it would be unacceptable for eligible voters to be turned away at the polls because of a technicality.

      And this little ditty...
      I know it's Pollyannaish but that is the reality of the sales pitch at least. It all sounds great to me if certain conditions are met.

      Coming voter database will help combat fraud

      GREAT FALLS The Montana secretary of state's office has nearly completed a voter database that will help weed out voter fraud.
      Secretary of State Brad Johnson says the office has found people who were registered twice, possibly because they had moved.

      The database would allow counties to remove the ballots of anyone who tried to vote twice. And clerks will be able to check the list against death announcements, to make sure people aren't voting a second time using a deceased person's identity.

      Prompted by the Help America Vote Act, the list is one of several changes voters will see by the June 6th primary election. Polling places will also have touch-screen voting machines to allow disabled people to vote privately. The machine will generate a paper ballot.

      Can anyone see a problem with machines in this context if the "receipt", once reviewed by the voter, becomes the ballot of record? If once the polls closed a state wide lottery occurred to determine which precincts would be hand counted along with the areas where obvious malfunction has occurred, I don't see much room for "the machines" to steal anything. As long as the lottery chose an agreeable % of the counties to hand count it would make it very difficult for diebold to chose which machines they needed to "Hack".

      If however anyone ever proves these machines can be REMOTEY hacked all bets are off.

      •  Voting machines are computers (3+ / 0-)

        Diebold has back door modems.  Ipso facto you can hack them.  Diebold has been shy about showing source code so what the programs will do with hacked data is another thing.  But yeah - you can hack any computer, especially if you can get into it.  With the modems, they are accessible.  They can be gotten into.  Now if they wanted to make them safe - that is very easy.  Simply do not hook them up to a phone line and offload the data and transport the data.  But even then you would have to know that the source code hasn't been tampered with and that is not an easy thing as apparently they mess around with the source code with every election.

        •  can you link (0+ / 0-)

          to the machines that have been hacked into from a remote location or the machines that have "back door" modems?

        •  IF you can get into it.... (0+ / 0-)

          Can you show ANY evidence that these machines CAN be 'gotten into'?

          Let's say the machines are kept secure JUST LIKE paper ballots need to be kept secure.

          How is someone going to REMOTELY hack into these machines?

          Any proof that it can happen?

          What makes you think that they have 'back door modems'?

          ...but not your own facts.

          by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 03:54:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  there's no question that e-voting machines have (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glitterscale, jen, ms in la

            external telephone connections for modem use. It's considered a feature by the vendors, and has been widely reported.

            here's a link to Diebold's own info re: the Accu-VoteTS (touchscreen) system, which features: "Teleresults for timely modem transmission of precinct results," as does Diebold's AccuVoteOS (optical scan system) -- link.

            and here's a link to a recent random local news story about the AccuVote system, in the Morning .Times, out of Sayre, PA:

            The machines can also download results through a modem to a manned ballot station.

            According to information from Diebold, the transfer of data is fast and accurate, uses standard land lines or cell phones for transmission; allows ballots completed by provisional voters to be electronically stored until verification occurs; features a voting card; reduces undervoting and eliminates overvoting. The machines are also equipped to aid the visually impaired.

            Skepticism is good, but a little research doesn't hurt either (just sayin').

            •  not a lack of research. (0+ / 0-)

              rhetoric is the problem. Backdoor modem at least implies a secret entrance available to the manufacturer a threat not resolvable by unplugging any existing connections.

              •  no, a modem is a modem. (6+ / 0-)

                and the very existence of a modem connection offers a "back door," i.e., another way in than the "front door" -- i.e., the authorized use of the direct telephone line from the precinct to the central tabulator -- your own backdoor at home isn't "secret," although generally speaking unauthorized visitors don't use it!

                That's the way modems work. If the diarist I was replying to thinks a law requiring that modem transmission of election results should be outlawed, in favor of physical transmission of memory cards to be inserted into the tabulator, fine -- but that's not the way the machines were designed.

                Your usual question, whether there's any evidence this HAS happened, is a better one, in my opinion.

                but not having proof that it HAS happened, in my opinion, is no reason not to acknowledge it COULD happen, and to try to prevent it from happening by using basic security measures like not sending unrecountable voting data over "standard" (unsecured) land or cell phone lines.

                My health clinic has no proof -- or even the slightest indication -- that their gynecologists have any inclination towards unprofessional conduct, but it's standard procedure for a nurse to always be in the room anyway.

                •  Right, so the machines should be secured (0+ / 0-)

                  There is NO evidence that ANYONE could remotly hack into these systems while they are hooked up and transferring data to election headquarters.

                  ...but not your own facts.

                  by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:29:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Except ME in the phone closet ;-) (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LeftyLimblog, jen, Sybil Liberty, ms in la

                    Sure anybody on the right pair of wires in the phone closet could easily detect what number was dialed, click over and insert into the ANALOG circuit, wait for an answer and send DIFFERENT results.

                    Now, that pair of wires goes all the way to the Central Office (CO=phone company) with many, many splice boxes and terminals in between. So I could be at a green box way down the street, in a manhole, on a pole, even in the CO.

                    Didja ever watch the teevee show Mission: Impossible?
                    Remember Barney?

                    Oh, and let's not forget the NSA is monitoring domestic communications.

                    I Know! LET'S ASK DONALD RUMSFELD!
                    "Is there a possiblity?  Sure. Could it happen? Of course! Will it happen? I dunno! Democracy is messy."

                    "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing" -Thomas Jefferson

                    by BillORightsMan on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:15:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  so basically (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      as long as the machines aren't plugged into a phone line they are safe from remote hacking?

                      •  Read Jennifer's post above (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ms in la

                        ...According to information from Diebold, the transfer of data is fast and accurate, uses standard land lines or cell phones for transmission;

                        The Manufacturers themselves put in a modem specifically for data transfer (vote totals) to the BoE or other central location.

                        Obviously, at some point in time, a phone line WILL BE plugged into the machine, most likely at the end of the day. Now, if they use CELLULAR, there are no wires to clip onto. But, with the right equipment or being in the right "cell" CO, BINGO!

                        An aside, when I worked for a phone company, I used a box popularly called a T-Bird to insert into a DIGITAL phone line, like a T-1 or PRI. I could listen to any channel, record, insert tones, see digits dialed, test the line and so forth. Phone guys all over have T-Birds AND access to CO's. I suppose some well-placed "envelopes" might "encourage" some Phone Guy to "help" democracy along.

                        Truth is stranger than fiction.

                        "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing" -Thomas Jefferson

                        by BillORightsMan on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 05:46:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, this is NOT evidence (0+ / 0-)

              That the machines can be remotely hacked.

              And that's not a back door modem.

              So, ONCE again, ANY proof?

              Any at ALL?

              ...but not your own facts.

              by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:27:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what? anything connected to a standard phone line (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LeftyLimblog, ms in la

                CAN be hacked into -- there isn't any question about whether it's possible -- that's why banks, etc. use secure, encrypted lines when they're sending data. Polling places don't have secure, encrypted phone lines.

                to repeat, I didn't say it HAS happened.

                as a software tester, my issues with evoting machines have nothing to do with fraud, and everything to do with reliability and accountability. The software sucks and it's been inadequately tested -- this has been demonstrated over and over again -- with "glitches" in election results, and bad performance during independent testing -- most recently in PA, when a state examiner halted testing last week of Sequoia evoting machines because the software "clearly is not stable."

                My dictionary doesn't have a definition for "backdoor modem" -- when you asked "What makes you think that they have 'back door modems'?" I genuinely thought you weren't aware evoting machines had modem connections, and regularly used standard phone lines to communicate results to a central tabulator. that's all.

                •  Paper Ballots Should Be the Legal Ballot (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  and the programming etc becomes a non-issue. All electronic machines should be Ballot Marking Devices, Period!!!  

                  The paper ballots should be counted at each precinct and the results transmitted separately by human voice over the phone and separate paper tallies.

                  The ballots could be transported as well and recounts should be done with a TV camera present as well as every citizen who wishes to observe quietly.

                  The state of Oregon does all their balloting by mail.

                  Anything but trusting these damn crooked DRM machines.


                  "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

                  by LeftyLimblog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:00:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's NOT remotely hacked n/t (0+ / 0-)

                  ...but not your own facts.

                  by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:39:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  slouise, I really don't get you -- apparently (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ms in la

                    you're as impervious to dialogue as the most devout "conspiracy theorist." If what I describe isn't "remote hacking," well what is? Please describe your definition of "remotely hacked" and tell us why you don't believe it's possible.

                    "remotely hacked" doesn't have a dictionary definition either, so otherwise, how do I know how you're defining it?

                    if the people who maintain that Diebold and other evoting vendors have deliberate malevolent intentions re: changing election results are correct, it's not a question of "hacking" anyway, in the sense that "hacking" implies intervention by an OUTSIDER breaking in.

                    Can instructions (to change results or to do anything else) be sent from one computer to another if they're attached by a standard phone line? The answer is yes. Do we know what instructions might be contained in any software code if such code is "proprietary" and can't be examined by independent testers or voting officials? The answer is no.

                    Should people be calling this scenario re: changing results via modem "remote hacking" ? well, maybe not, but heck, if that's what you want to argue about, you can find somebody else to argue with. Forget my request for you to define exactly what you're claiming cannot happen, I've done my part here, and I'm moving on.

                    •  Good idea, jennifer (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm sorry that Senator Bowen's excellent diary had to end up sullied with extraneous, unrelated refuse.

                      I'm moving on too.

                      And--- thank you one more time Senator for all your efforts.  You are appreciated!

                    •  But that cannot happen (0+ / 0-)

                      If there are encryption and password protections.

                      The machines HAVE to be kept secure.

                      I cannot tell you HOW many times I have typed that sentence immediately above this one.

                      If the machines are kept secure, there is NOT an issue.

                      And they CAN be kept secure.

                      ...but not your own facts.

                      by slouise217 on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 03:17:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe you have THAT guy all wrong-- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You mean this Brad Johnson, Secretary of State in Montana?


        In 1967, Brad was a member of the Illinois Teenage Republicans. In 1968, he was a volunteer for Richard Nixon for President.  In 1971, while attending community college in Glendale, Arizona, Brad was vice president of the College Republicans. In 1972, he was co-chairman of Young Voters for the President (Nixon) at the University of Illinois. In 1980, he was a volunteer in Texas for John Connally for President.   Brad owned an auto parts store in Bozeman, which he sold when he ran for Secretary of State.


        Is this to be our paragon for voting virtues?  Just sayin'....

        Getting increasingly difficult to extend blind-faith trust so readily these days... to some. This one will need to do a whole lot more than try to weed out "voter fraud" to convince me.  And, speaking of "evidence"-- where are the mounds of evidence to support there was any massive voter fraud in '04?  Meaning of course the voters themselves were the perpetrators of fraud.  

        I'd really like to see some hard data on that.  To ascertain just how WIDESPREAD it was and therefore how it merits our attention and the need for such remedy.

        •  oh i forgot (0+ / 0-)

          Your part of the crowd that thinks all republicans are traitors and part of the vote rigging conspiracy. You think you can convince elected republicans by calling them names and lumping them into ever changing conspiracies both past, present, and future.

          •  Calling them names? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm looking for the names I called Mr. Johnson-- other than Secretary of State.  

            •  Give me a break from strawman arguments (1+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Hidden by:
              1. Putting "this" in italics as a response to the previous poster IS, without a doubt, denigrating him. Saying "THAT guy" is denigrating and a personal attack.
              1. Suggesting that his support for Nixon as a very young man means that he is untrustworthy, or really means ANYTHING, is a personal attack.
              1. John Connally supporters are not well-known as conspiracists.
              1. Denigrating him by saying that he cannot be a paragon of virtue in the way you did is making a personal attack that has nothing to do with his behavior and is simply an attempt to deny him credibility based upon name calling.
              1. And you are just being an ASSHOLE suggesting that by saying "voter fraud" that the person meant that the VOTERS committed fraud.

              So, yeah, you 'called names' in the generic sense of the term - you made repeated personal attacks. Rather than addressing the issues, and attacking the points another person made, YOU chose to go the route of the ad hominem attack.

              And THEN you made a strawman argument by suggesting that because you did not LITERALLY call anyone 'a name', ALL of what that poster said to you is invalid. Of course it was not - substitute "made personal attacks rather than addressing the issues raised and the stances held by that person" for "calling them names" and the description by Anonymous Army FITS YOU TO A TEE!

              And that's scummy behavior on your part - to use a strawman argument AND by ridiculing AA's post over the phrase he chose, YOU demonstrate that YOU cannot debate the facts, and choose personal attacks once again.

              ...but not your own facts.

              by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 07:24:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yet again, we see the typical stuff (0+ / 0-)

                Someone on THIS thread suggested that "anti-Bev Harris and BBV" people would come here and make baseless assertions, and troll rate people unfairly, and all kinds of preplanned nastiness that has nothing to do with fighting for the truth and everything to do with being on the side of Diebold.

                Of course that was not true, and have never been true - what HAS been the case is that BevBots and BBV'ers have a pattern of troll-rating posts unfairly and uprating posts that do not deserve it.

                And so WHAT happened here - I get a troll rating on a post that was NOT deserving of it.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:54:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And you proved that person right... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Unless you meant "asshole" as a compliment...

                  I believe in the "generic sense of the term", you've reacted precisely as the poster predicted you would... perhaps absent the usual "troll ratings"...

                  You may think people don't lurk and take note of your bullshit... but they do...

                  George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                  by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:59:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Speaking of 'Strawman Arguments'... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You admonished this poster for namecalling then proceeded to call the very same poster an asshole...

                "Generic sense of the term"??? What the fuck does that mean??? Other than you realized the poster hadn't called ANYONE a name and rather than displaying a modicum of class and admitting your mistake, broadening the term "namecalling" to some vague bullshit defintion of your own construct...

                THAT's "scummy behavior"... look it up...

                George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 08:56:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I Haven't Called You Any Names (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ms in la

            And there are lots of Republicans I have talked to in Napa County, CA that don't like the electronic voting machines either.

            So don't get your undies in a bunch.


            "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

            by LeftyLimblog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:05:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Right. I'm the one who's misinformed. (4+ / 0-)

        I've been involved in computer software for 23 years. I have a sense of just how difficult security is to implement.

        There are legitimate reasons to be concerned without being a conspiracy theorist.

        You may want to look at this:

        The revelations in the Florida counties were engineered by Herbert Thompson, a computer science professor at the Florida Institute of Technology, and Harri Hursti, a programmer who lives in Finland. They examined optical-scan ballot counting equipment purchased by Leon County from Diebold Inc., a major maker of ATM and election equipment. The technicians were introduced to county supervisor of elections Ion Sancho by (BBV), a nonprofit organization that critiques computerized voting.

        Under Sancho's watchful eye, the computer experts ran the following demonstration, according to a BBV report.

        • Initializing the counter. A Diebold-specified memory card, a device about the size of a credit card, was inserted into the optical-scan counting machine to initialize it. As is the case before every election, a "zero report" was run, showing that zero votes were recorded in each race.
        • Inserting the ballots. Sancho and others marked optical-scan ballots by filling in circles on the printed cards. These forms were then inserted into the counter, as voters normally do after marking their ballots. The totals, counted by witnesses before the insertion, were Yes 2, No 6.
        • Tabulating the vote. The totals tallied by the vote counter, however, were Yes 7, No 1. In addition, the totals accepted from the counter by the central tabulator, also made by Diebold, showed Yes 7, No 1. No alerts had been sounded by either machine.

        How was the count changed? Hursti had added data to the memory card prior to its insertion. This subtracted votes from one position and added them to the other. The same change could be made by almost any dishonest election official, Hursti explained, without the need for any password or much specialized knowledge. Yet the tampering "will not be detected in any normal canvassing procedure," he said. A recount using the same memory card would deliver the same results.
        How the Winning Candidate "Rolls Over" the Loser

        In a PDF report released in July 2005, Hursti said the Diebold memory cards can hold "an executable program which acts on the vote data." In a well-designed election system, by contrast, the vote counting mechanism should contain only "the ballot design and the race definitions." In other words, initializing a counting machine should install only a list of the candidates and ballot measures to be tallied in each race.

        In his report, Hursti indicates that the vote-changing trick can be accomplished using plain old integer math. The Diebold election machines are designed to count each position's votes up to 65,535, which is 1 less than a power of 2. When 1 more vote is counted, the tally "rolls over" to 0. The following vote brings the total to 1, and so forth.

        We are the ones we've been waiting for.
        I'm a grassroots candidate.

        by Malacandra on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 03:46:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just a few predictions... (4+ / 0-)

          You are about to see what may read like a concerted effort to protect the good name of Diebold.  Seems odd, I know. At Kos and all...

          It may be buried in derision, mocking, smearing and an attempt to debunk whatever you post that could indicate the good folks at Diebold are not perhaps working on behalf of the American voter.

          It will almost seem as if a "team" had an unparalleled need to conclude that Diebold can do no wrong... like, I don't some agenda.

          You took the bait by responding to the request for a link, it was only natural.  I also predict by the time I click POST, your link will have been already decimated by someone who seems to adamantly feel Diebold needs some help at Kos protecting their good name.  They will claim they are only fighting for the truth.  The strident anger and shrillness may seem totally disproportionate to the deed-- the deed being posting anything even hinting at nefarious actions by Diebold.

          Like I said, this is only a hunch.  I'm prepared to be wrong.  In fact, Oh how I would love to be wrong on this!!  Because we all know Diebold already has its own paid Public Relations Department to handle these sorts of things and surely doesn't need help from Kossacks.

          •  Yet again, BBV protectors make strawman arguments (0+ / 0-)

            I have yet to see a single occurrence of what you claim.

            The fact that many of us defend the truth, and demand EVIDENCE before we jump to conclusions does NOT mean that we are defending Diebold.

            And I have seen MANY people TRULY debunk what BBV has said - they not only ATTEMPT to debunk, but they truly debunk.

            And it certainly is undeniable that there is a team that has supported BBV here at DailyKos - people that only post on those threads, people that participate in ratings abuse, troll rating comments that simply express disagreement, and promote a differing opinion, and up-rating undeniably troll posts from nasty BBV supporters who make comments which are intended to further the debate.

            Often, people that participate in certain behaviors falsely accuse others of participating in those same behaviors - I think this is one of those times where DailyKos posters who think that unsubstantiated allegations, without proof to back them up, HURT the cause of election reform, are being baselessly slandered.

            I don't CLAIM to be ONLY interested in the truth - I AM only interested in protecting the truth and honoring the facts. I fight this cause on EVERY avenue I have available to me - in the lessons I teach to students, in the way I live my life, and in the posts I make on sites like this on a huge variety of topics.

            Your baseless assertion that my interest in the truth is ONLY a 'claim' so that I can protect Diebold is ludicrous. I could give a shit about Diebold - I have NO reason to support Diebold in ANY way, and for you to assert that a love for Diebold is the ONLY reason that someone could object to a distortion of the facts simply displays YOUR lack of character on this issue.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 07:01:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  my favorite (0+ / 0-)

              is when they post inflammatory "uh oh better watch out for the diebold Nazis at dkos more worried about this site's image than they are about saving democracy"

              Then when you call them on it they say "Oh go take your flame war to another thread we're too busy saving democracy to discuss this with someone obviously on diebold’s payroll if they don't believe bev harris or brad blog. oh and hursti hursti hursti.

              Am I missing something about the soon to be historic "hursti hack"?

              Once a sos or rep takes possession of independently tested and verified machines hursti proved that a diebold technician or trained nefarious official could, if they had unsupervised access, manipulate the machines?

              How much did he get paid by Bev to test the machines and has anyone else duplicated his results using the same methods?

              Is this anything we doubted was possible or claimed to be impossible?

              If diebold claimed it was impossible is there proof they a; knew before making the claim but couldn't fix it or b; knew it was bogus because they purposely made it possible to switch votes via a memory stick when granted unsupervised access to the machines?

              •  Earlier today (0+ / 0-)

                Someone suggested that Bev Harris was "independent" and Hursti was "impartial" when I said I wanted someone to look into this that was "independent AND impartial".

                How crazy would one have to be to think that Bev Harris and someone she employs are independent and impartial?

                This was on the thread about the guy in Utah who has been anti-electronic voting for more than a year, yet said that when he looked at the Diebold machines he was open-minded. When this man thought he had found weaknesses in the machines, instead of looking for an independent, impartial group to investigate his suspicions, he chose BBV, Bev Harris and Hursti, and another poster was trying to defend that selection as a reasonable choice.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:14:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Which group would you consider 'impartial'??? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Seems to me you're hanging your hat on Diebold's own findings... do you consider them "independent and impartial"?

                  George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                  by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:18:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  NO (0+ / 0-)

                    Diebold is NOT impartial and independent when it comes to investigating their own machines.

                    I never said they were, though.

                    What happened when the election clerk in Utah, Bruce Funk, 'discovered' the shortfalls in memory, he did NOT ask his supervisors and the State Elections officials to find an independent and impartial group to see if there were some issues, did he? Did he even ask Diebold if there was an innocent explanation for it? Nope. He went to a partisan group with a huge amount of known antagonism towards Diebold.

                    You baselessly accuse ME of being a Diebold supporter.

                    And you give people like Bruce Funk a pass for being a blatant BBV supporter.

                    Who's the one that is not being fair here?

                    I'll give you a hint - it's NOT you.

                    There is NO doubt that Diebold was able to prove to the satisfaction of MULTIPLE elections officials in Utah that the reason for the differences in available memory was because of differing fonts. In fact the font that they say is ON these systems was predicted by BBV people to take up 22 MB, and guess what the shortfall was on those computers? 22 MB. Hursti even suggested that differing fonts COULD BE the biggest reason for the differences in available memory, but pooh-poohed the possibility.

                    So, EVEN BBV says that Diebold's explanation is perfectly reasonable, yet YOU question ME agreeing that they have PROVEN that there is no "there" there?


                    ...but not your own facts.

                    by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:03:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're a partisan indvidual... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      with a huge amount of known antagonism of BBV, Bev Harris, Harry Hursti and anyone outside of a small circle jerk of cronies in this forum...

                      Why the fuck should anyone believe you? I certainly don't...

                      And speaking of "baseless accusations", how, praytell have you managed to transmogrify Bruce Funk into a "blatant BBV supporter"?  Apparently in your world, anyone who doesn't wipe his ass with BBV toilet paper is a "blatant BBV supporter"... again, you use the term pejoratively... why is that???

                      This should be good...

                      George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                      by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:35:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, I am not a partisan individual re:BBV (0+ / 0-)

                        Yet again you lie.

                        I AM a partisan for the truth. I honor the facts. I respect the truth. I demand facts.

                        I post on NUMEROUS TOPICS HERE. I objected to people making mistaken posts about that Tom DeLay could do, and how he could be replaced on the ballot - not because I like Tom DeLay, but because I like the facts. I objected to people suggesting that sites were blocked because they are liberal just because liberal sites were blocked. I defend the truth, over and over again.

                        Bruce Funk has been a declared opponent of electronic voting for over a year. He called in BBV to investigate this after NUMEROUS consultations with them, according to BBV.

                        Numerous consultations and then calling them in, instead of an independent, impartial third party, when BBV has expressed great contempt for Diebold, equals Bruce Funk being a blatant BBV supporter.

                        Sorry that YOU think I don't have common sense.

                        And too bad for you that you don't think that OTHERS here don't recognize my common sense, my dedication to the truth, and loyalty to progressive causes of all stripes.

                        And using BBV supporter as a perjorative?

                        I attack ALL people who are conspiracy theorists.

                        They evince that behavior by only looking at some of the facts, ignoring the facts that would disprove their theories, and they jump to conclusions.

                        I DO hold people who disrespect the truth in those ways in a dim light.

                        I think ALL people should show little regard for disrespecting the truth.

                        If the BBV'ers would stop alleging that fraud HAS happened when they cannot prove it, and instead worked on alleging that since fraud COULD happen, we need to work on preventing fraud from happening, which is what I insist upon.

                        Those that self-identify themselves as people who disrespect the truth by distorting the facts, omitting relevant details and leaping to unjustifiable conclusions deserve all the scorn I give them and much more.

                        Just like John Wayne Gacy gets called a murderer, and that is NOT name calling, if people don't want to be described by their support of conspiracy theories and other nonsense, then they should stop disrespecting the facts - it is NOT my fault that I catch them at their deceitful ways - it is THEIR fault for behaving in deceitful ways.

                        ...but not your own facts.

                        by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:57:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're flailing now... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          As Woody Allen once said... just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not really out to get you...

                          The same applies to those you so contemptuously dismiss as "conspiracy theorists"...

                          Get a fucking clue... you're basing your entire argument on the sweaty reassurances about Diebold Systems from Diebold Systems... you've yet to provide a shred of evidence from any non-Diebold source to support your bleating(s)...

                          Yet you have the unmitigated gall to mouth fart about the "truth"???


                          George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                          by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:07:23 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                            Don't you get embarrassed by having your lies displayed for all to see?

                            If I behaved like you have been, I sure would.

                            I am glad I have too much integrity to do that.

                            And NOPE, conspiracy theorists are not the same as people that are paranoid that have good reason to be paranoid.

                            Conspiracy theorists are people who are paranoid who DON'T have good reason to believe that they have evidence that there are people out to get you.

                            And YOU lie about my entire argument.

                            Even BBV has admitted, and I already pointed this out ON THIS VERY THREAD IN THIS VERY ARGUMENT, that it easily could be the case in the case of Bruce Funk in Utah, that the memory issues could be the result of differing fonts. BBV predicted it would be 22MB and guess what - the font that allows Chinese characters takes up 22MB, just as they predicted. So, there's evidence from a non-Diebold source. In addition, Diebold presented evidence to Utah elections officials. Those elections officials, several of them, have clearly stated that I am right and you are wrong about Diebold in this case. Yet another example. And on THIS topic supposedly being covered in this diary, about the thousands of votes dumped from the rolls - I provided evidence that in fact they are not being dumped from the rolls - that is not an accurate way of describing what is happening to them. In addition, on another diary on this same topic, I provided proof that it was not related to any work that Diebold had done that caused this issue - it is the responsiblity of the elections people in California.

                            I have provided lots of evidence along the way, yet you LIE and say that I did not. And then try to use that lie to suggest that I am a Diebold supporter in a malicious way.

                            You are the one that has demonstrated unmitigated gall.

                            I am the one that over and over again, and on many issues, have clearly fought for the truth.

                            Once again, doesn't it get embarrassing to make yourself look so stupid like this?

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:27:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Then why do you defend Diebold at every turn??? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              And demand "proof" of the hackablility of their equipment in the absolute absence of ANY proof on your part that the systems are sound???

              For instance, I've yet to see you support Diebold intentionally reverse-engineering printers OUT of their equipment... perhaps you could back down from your namecalling for a moment and enlighten us as to how exactly that ensures the integrity of Diebold's systems...

              George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

              by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:06:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have NEVER defended Diebold (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Not once.

                Never have I defended Diebold.

                I will pay you $100 if you can find a single instance of me defending Diebold.

                I have NOT said that their systems are sound.

                You have me confused with some kind of fool.

                I am not.

                Objecting to people that claim that Diebold's systems are NOT okay WITHOUT having proof of their accusations is NOT equivalent to saying that Diebold's systems are sound.

                This is NOT rocket science.

                HAD I been name-calling, I WOULD back down from that - but I was not name calling.

                I will NOT back down from calling OUT liars and distorters and people who provide limited information.

                I do that to rightwingers who present only a part of the known facts in order to present a distorted picture. I do it with people who suggested the other day that there will be soldiers in Iraq doing without body armor because of the directive that said that they could not use privately-purchased body armor - I challenged them to provide ANY evidence that ANY soldier would do without armor as a result of that directive.

                Like I said, I don't give a shit about Diebold.

                I love facts. I respect the truth. I demand evidence.

                Bev Harris, BBV, and other similar groups have NOT provided evidence of election fraud.

                I willingly acknowledge that fraud COULD happen. And BECAUSE fraud could happen, we should do several things to try to prevent fraud from happening. But that's different than what BBV has done.

                On another topic, people jumped to the baseless conclusion that because some liberal websites were blocked, they were blocked because they were liberal. In fact, sites were blocked, yet there was NEVER a shred of evidence that there was ANY relationship between sites being blocked and their political perspective, and there was plenty of evidence that sites were blocked for OTHER reasons.

                But saying that there was NO evidence that sites were blocked for political stances does not mean that it is impossible for sites TO BE BLOCKED for that reason, does it? Of course it does not.

                Why do you NOT understand that just because someone objects to ONE argument does not mean that they support an opposing argument?

                But in any case, the OPPOSING argument to MINE, that without proof we cannot assert that fraud has happened, would be that with proof we CAN assert that fraud has happened, and I DO agree with that.

                If someone is going to assert that their system is hackable, then they need to prove it.

                This is not rocket science - it's simple critical thinking and logic.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:31:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Seems to me you've got a bigger problem with BBV (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  than anything else...  even Diebold... are the B + V keys on your keyboard rubbed blank???

                  Methinks someone pissed in your cornflakes along the way...

                  Meanwhile, to dismiss as baseless the notion that fraud may have happened solely on the basis of the absence of a definitive link to an easily (for you) digestable little proof pill is as idiotic as those who claim that Valerie Plame wasn't illegally outed as an undercover CIA agent solely on the basis of the fact that nobody has yet been charged with outing her... I believe a large part of the reason for that is the concerted effort on the part of certain members of the adminstration to obscure the crime(s)... my suspicion is that similar efforts at concealment have been thusfar successful as it relates to illegal/fraudulent activity related to the last 3 elections... note my use of the word "suspicion" before flailing away with another CAPS-LADEN rant...

                  Unless you don't happen to believe the current administration and some of their supporters have been quite dilligent at covering their tracks...

                  George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                  by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:24:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope, you lie (0+ / 0-)

                    I have a problem with lies and distortions of ANY kind. I have a problem with those that push suspicions as facts and omit evidence that debunks their conspiracy theories.

                    I honor the truth. I respect the facts. I demand evidence. If BBV and Bev Harris didn't abuse the truth, and promote suspicions as evidence and disrespect facts, I would have NO problem with BBV.

                    I think that YOU failed the critical thinking part of any exam you have taken in your life.

                    Methinks you should just go fuck yourself.

                    You baselessly accused me, in a tag team event, of being a Diebold supporter when there is no evidence of that in ANY forum. I was accused of ganging up on BBV'ers, when in fact it is clearly the BBV'ers that gang up on others.

                    I am incredibly proud of the fact that I do not jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. And I regret that you cannot say the same. And until YOU can say the same, I will continue to point out the fallacies in your arguments.

                    The fact that I am unwilling to jump to conclusions based upon hints and suspicions makes me very reliable. It does NOT mean that I cannot be convinced that election fraud could happen. The FACT is that I do THINK that election fraud likely HAS happened, and I have said this REPEATEDLY on this site and others. But before I will say that election fraud happened, I demand evidence of that.

                    And Bruce Funk did NOT provide evidence of fraud. He was not an impartial arbiter of the facts, and he violated a contract with a provider that his state and his county had signed by requesting testing by a partisan company like BBV and an organization BBV pays, run by Hursti.

                    I have NO apologies for honoring the truth.

                    Too bad YOU won't apologize for making baseless accusations and refusing to admit to basic facts like I listed above.

                    ...but not your own facts.

                    by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:42:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ahhh... the CAPS LADEN RANT... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ms in la

                      Right on schedule...

                      Meanwhile, you don't seem to DEMAND anything of Diebold systems other than their condescending admonitions to simply "trust" them...

                      Seriously, did someone at BBV steal your boy/girlfriend at some point???

                      George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                      by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:58:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yet again, the personal attack (0+ / 0-)

                        Can't debate the facts, so make a personal attack.

                        See, I teach debate and critical thinking at a bigtime University. I got a law degree, and worked as an attorney for a few years, and then began teaching, and have been doing that for a couple of decades.

                        So your attempts to sneak a personal attack past me are not likely to succeed.

                        Using caps in a post is NOT out of line - YOUR attacking me because of it IS out of line however.

                        Using caps to emphasis words that one would emphasis in spoken language is perfectly acceptable - as I suggested in another post to you, feel free to look it up, and at least you will learn one thing from this interaction tonight.

                        You do not know WHAT I demand of Diebold.

                        What I demand of people that want me to believe that they can prove elections fraud is proof and evidence of their assertions.

                        I am not the one that has demonstrated an irrational attack on anyone or any group - you should look in the mirror to see someone who has participated in that behavior tonight.

                        ...but not your own facts.

                        by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:33:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This from the poster... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          jen, ms in la

                          Who called another a poster an asshole... I wasn't attempting to sneak a personal attack by you... I was hand-delivering it to you... funny how you're now weeping about personal attacks... it was your ad hominem personal attack against another Kossack which first drew me into this discussion... when you go about calling other people "assholes" you should either be prepared for some vitriol hurled your way or, preferably, refrain from calling other people assholes in the first place... you owe that poster an apology... I doubt it's forthcoming because clearly you lack the class to recognize that, but you do, in fact owe that person an apology, regardless of whether or not you share or even respect their opinion... do you teach your debate students to use such invectives???

                          Meanwhile, you might want to ask an English professor at your bigtime university to explain the proper useage of capitalization though... unless the bigtime university you "teach debate at" is actually called "The University", "university" shouldn't have been captialized in your sentence ...

                          Occasionally using CAPS for emphasis is pefectly acceptable... however,  overusage of CAPS for emphasis is indicative of a tiresome and somewhat unbalanced individual... you're currently engaged in illustrating this point perfectly.. one can only imagine how many CAPS LOCKS keys you've pounded into submission...

                          George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                          by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:49:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I ONLY call people assholes (1+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:

                            After they self-identify themselves as one. Someone said "voter fraud", meaning fraud involving the vote, and THIS person tried to imply that the poster was saying that voters are committing fraud. That was an obnoxious and obviously untrue thing that the poster said. There was no reason to assert that the poster who said "voter fraud" was accusing voters of fraud, and it was clear what he meant. Not only did this poster distort his own behavior to assert that he had not done any "name calling", when in fact he had made several undeserved personal attacks, and THEN he fraudulently accused another poster of attacking voters when that other poster was clearly identifying election fraud and simply mistakenly called it voter fraud. It was clear from the context what was meant.

                            That poster was being an asshole for doing what he did. I fully explained that in my post.

                            It could NOT have been an ad hominem attack that drew you in, 'cause I didn't make one. Describing someone's behavior, after they have DONE that behavior, is NOT a personal attack. It's NOT a personal attack to call a John Wayne Gacy a serial killer, and it's not a personal attack after someone behaves in the way that this poster acted to call them an asshole.

                            Yet another lie from a serial liar. (Hint - that would be YOU, and yet again it's NOT a personal attack if it's true.) If you were to look up "personal attacks", or "ad hominem" attacks, you might learn THIS fact - "A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims." But I did NOT substitute abusive remarks for evidence, did I? I provided evidence, and then came to a conclusion based upon that evidence.

                            Not a shock that YOU would lie again, and not a shock that you would attempt to use a fraudulent excuse to try to excuse YOUR behavior.

                            And I do not overcapitalize, so I am not gonna worry about your opinion. You have not demonstrated that you have an opinion I should trust.

                            And your parting shot is a complaint that I capitalized the place where I work?

                            Tough shit, asshole.

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 03:30:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, actually... (0+ / 0-)

                            You imagined that the poster called Bruce Johnson "names"... when challenged and proven decidedly wrong in that regard, you broadened your definition of "namecalling" to some insanely broad "generic" use of the term and called the poster an asshole.. it's all right there on the screen.. would you like a link???

                            You owe that person an apology...

                            George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:19:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I DIDN'T say that the poster called names (0+ / 0-)

                            Another poster did.

                            But what's another manipulation of the facts when it comes to you, huh?

                            Name calling is NOT limited to what the offensive poster might have literally called someone - it is the implication too.

                            I guess you forgot I teach debate, and have done so for 20+ years now - Name calling is NOT limited to actual NAMES.

                            Only people trying to deny the truth would assert that!

                            The person WAS an asshole for their behavior.

                            I do NOT owe that person an apology - they self-identified themselves as an asshole, and I documented how they did so in that very post!

                            Do YOU need a link to it, since YOU seemed to have missed that incredibly relevant point?


                            Putting "this" in italics as a response to the previous poster IS, without a doubt, denigrating him. Saying "THAT guy" is denigrating and a personal attack.
                            Suggesting that his support for Nixon as a very young man means that he is untrustworthy, or really means ANYTHING, is a personal attack.
                            John Connally supporters are not well-known as conspiracists.
                            Denigrating him by saying that he cannot be a paragon of virtue in the way you did is making a personal attack that has nothing to do with his behavior and is simply an attempt to deny him credibility based upon name calling.
                            And you are just being an ASSHOLE suggesting that by saying "voter fraud" that the person meant that the VOTERS committed fraud.
                            So, yeah, you 'called names' in the generic sense of the term - you made repeated personal attacks. Rather than addressing the issues, and attacking the points another person made, YOU chose to go the route of the ad hominem attack.

                            I have NO apologies to make for MY posts, nor would I fear ANY exposure of them to my students OR the DailyKos management.

                            On the other hand, YOU have been documented to have provided false accusations against me REPEATEDLY on this thread. I have called you on those false accusations numerous times, and I have done so again on this post, as you have grossly misrepresented what happened when that poster acted like an asshole and I called them on it.

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 02:50:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You've yet to make a relevant point... (0+ / 0-)

                            Not one... you're still flailing... you ARE leading the league in non sequiturs though...

                            And you do owe that person an apology for calling them an asshole... like I said, you're clearly not in possession of the class and dignity to recognize that FACT, but you do...

                            Thanks for illustrating my point though.... again...

                            George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:28:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, lies and the lying liars that tell them (0+ / 0-)
                            2nd edition.

                            I do not owe John Wayne Gacy an apology for calling him a murderer, I do not owe you, a documented liar, an apology for calling you a liar, and I do not owe that poster an apology either.

                            And, once again, I know better than to judge myself by YOUR criteria!

                            What a fool.

                            But thanks for several examples of ludicrous arguing techniques to show to my students as "what NOT to do".

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:30:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  <dial tone>.... (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:

                            You have reached a thread that is no longer in service... please check your meds and try your post again later...

                            George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                            by ThatSinger on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:14:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And YOU are still an asshole (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:

                            But you already knew that, but since you cannot refute that fact, yet again you make a personal attack.

                            Keep digging.

                            But you SHOULD be made aware that when you continue digging when you are already in a hole, ALL you do is end up throwing dirt up that then lands right back on top of YOU - it is YOU that becomes smeared with the dirt you are trying to throw my way.

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:01:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The post to which I replied (0+ / 0-)

                            stated this, (*note the original blockquote indicating it was not the poster's statement, but from the Secretary of State's office):

                            GREAT FALLS The Montana secretary of state's office has nearly completed a voter database that will help weed out voter fraud. <snip>
                            The database would allow counties to remove the ballots of anyone who tried to vote twice. And clerks will be able to check the list against death announcements, to make sure people aren't voting a second time using a deceased person's identity.

                            In consideration of "people voting a second time using a deceased person's identity"--silly me, I hastily interpreted that to mean the voter was the one committing fraud, by voting as a dead person and voting twice....dunno what got into me there? So, still obviously referring to the above statement from the secretary of state, I said this:

                            This one will need to do a whole lot more than try to weed out "voter fraud" to convince me.  And, speaking of "evidence"-- where are the mounds of evidence to support there was any massive voter fraud in '04?  Meaning of course the voters themselves were the perpetrators of fraud.

                            You then said this:

                            Someone said "voter fraud", meaning fraud involving the vote, and THIS person tried to imply that the poster was saying that voters are committing fraud. That was an obnoxious and obviously untrue thing that the poster said. There was no reason to assert that the poster who said "voter fraud" was accusing voters of fraud, and it was clear what he meant.

                            You can see that the "someone" was the SOS office's statement the poster was recommending -- and NOT the poster.  My reply was clearly regarding the SOS's statement, and not the poster.

                            And yes, it was clear what "he" meant--- "he" being the Secretary of State. Voters voting while dead, thereby committing voter fraud.  Out of the 40,000 reports in '04 received by the Verified Voting hotline.... I can't recall any evidence of complaints skewing the vote due to voter fraud.  Yet somehow, curiously, "voter fraud" is the exact term that the obstructionists cite when defending the status quo-- when defending maintaining the hackable insecure systems without any meaningful verification or public oversight.

                            Good.  Now that's cleared up!

                          •  Nope, it's NOT cleared up (0+ / 0-)

                            You were directing your comments to a poster whose POINT was that machines will not allow that kind of fraud.

                            You then distorted what that poster was saying.

                            HIS paragraph, AFTER the blockquote that mentions voter fraud, is ALL about election fraud using electronic voting machines.

                            And YET AGAIN you lie about what "the obstructionists" cite, and yet again you name call by saying that people that want to avoid making unfounded accusations and jumping to unsubtantiated conclusions are "obstructionists". In fact, people that behave that way are moral and reasonable. And, of course, what do YOU mention in YOUR next sentence? The very machines that AA was talking about right after he blockquoted. And of course you LIE that people that dislike YOUR message cite voter fraud on a regular message.

                            Cleared up? I didn't need anything cleared up - I already had you pegged when I found that 3 weeks ago YOU rallied people to come here and 'defend' Bev Harris and then YOU asserted that it was the anti-BBV people that were unfairly in attack groups.

                            YOU are a member of the group that unfairly trollrates dissenting opinion.

                            You are a member of the group that has been denied the ability to have conspiracy theories about election fraud published on this site.

                            You are a member of the group whose leader was banned from DailyKos.

                            I have NO leader. I post on a variety of issues, and 75% of my posts are directed towards defending the truth, and objection to lies, distortions, and omissions of relevant data.

                            You, on the other hand, have virtually NO posts on ANY subject besides this one.

                            YOU are the one that links to a website specifically about election fraud.

                            Hmmmm, who is the reliable one here?

                            You get 3 guesses, and your first 3 don't count.

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 04:37:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, and the weeping about personal attacks? (0+ / 0-)
                            Yeah, right.

                            In fact, what I was doing was calling YOU out, and embarrassing YOU in public for YOUR behavior.

                            YOU think that your accusations of me are what I use to judge myself? That I would use a rating or characterization that YOU provided to judge myself?

                            And because I would use the value that you placed on my comment, I'm whining and weeping?

                            Yeah, right.

                            Delusional much, Singer?

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:36:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Got Prozac???? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                            by ThatSinger on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:19:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Got a brain? Got a clue? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 02:36:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Diebold Defenders tossing about the term (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              BBV Protectors as a pejorative...

              Truly hilarious... yes... you're so persecuted... so singled out..

              Bandying about the term "Strawman" every other post while you and yours continually attempt to strike matches with the pathetic ineptitude of Richard Reid, futilely attempting to ignite YOUR "Straw Woman" (Ms. Harris)...

              George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

              by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:15:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I did not 'bandy about' any term (0+ / 0-)

                I said that there was a strawman argument. I then pointed out the specific thing that was the strawman argument. I then pointed out why it was a strawman argument.

                What did YOU do? Made a personal attack by suggesting that I make strawman argument accusations willy-nilly with no attempt to back them up.

                You lie. I have not brought up strawman argument every other post, or anything close to it, but when the shoe fits, wear it. If others are making strawman arguments, and I point it out, then the fault is NOT with me being able to repeatedly point it out - the fault is with the originators of the strawman arguments.

                Yet again, another "criminal" defense.

                The criminal says "the informant is bad, or the cops, or the DA, or the judge or jury are bad, because I am in jail."

                When in fact the ONLY person who is responsible for the criminal being in jail is the criminal who did the crime.

                If there are multiple strawman arguments, then there is NO FLAW with me pointing them out multiple times.

                I would LOVE to NEVER have to point out another strawman argument - I would LOVE IT!!! But if they continue to exist, I will continue to point them out. And for YOU to suggest that there is something wrong with ME for pointing out strawman arguments makes me wonder WHY you would want to ALLOW them to go unchallenged? Exactly WHY should I stop pointing out the fallacies in people's arguments? Why would THAT benefit this site?

                In fact, it is BBV defenders who are throwing around the term Diebold defenders.

                It was a BBV'er who made the baseless charge that those that fight for the truth to be honored and for evidence to be demanded are Diebold defenders.

                Pretty weak try. You need to go back to the drawing board here, because you have failed miserably here to win a single argument - I did NOT do what you have repeatedly claimed, yet I have been able to document, repeatedly, what I have claimed has happened.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:40:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Whoever introduced you to the term Strawman (0+ / 0-)

                  should be drowned...

                  You've yet to explain, much less support the basis of your support for Diebold, much less your repeated attacks against specific individuals who've questioned the reliability of not only Diebold's systems, but others as well... your claims of fighting for "truth" ring rather hollow in the complete absence of any proof whatsoever to support your claims... what "truth" are you referring to???  Seems to me, you're quite literally basing your entire argument(s) on Diebold's claim(s) that their systems are reliable, or in the instance(s) that they've proven themselves unreliable, that Diebold will make the necessary adjustments... you seem quite willing to simply "trust" them, while providing not a shred of evidence in support of that "trust"...

                  Oh yeah... you DON'T need to shout...

                  Document away... I'll wait...


                  George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

                  by ThatSinger on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:11:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I teach about strawmen argument in college (0+ / 0-)

                    So, yet again, you are wrong about me not understanding what a strawman argument is. I understand them quite well.

                    As I have repeatedly said (and WHY do you not understand this yet?) that I do NOT support Diebold.

                    The fact that I object to unfair accusations AGAINST Diebold does not equal me supporting Diebold.

                    So, the reason I have not explained WHY I support Diebold?

                    Because I DON'T support Diebold.

                    It's not rocket science. Hell, this isn't even 9th Grade Earth Science!

                    I have NEVER done what you say I have done.

                    You continue to LIE though - once again, those who cannot debate the facts must take other tacks.

                    Absence of evidence for any of my claims?

                    What an asshole.

                    My claims are that there is NO evidence of election fraud in most cases.

                    And the EVIDENCE of my claims? The evidence that MY claims hold water is that no one has been able to provide evidence of election fraud actually happening.

                    In other words, INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE.

                    100% validation of my claims. Absolute evidence for my claims.

                    Yet again YOU assert that I have said that Diebold is reliable.

                    But I don't say that, and never have said that, and I offered anyone $100 to provide a shred of evidence that I ever have, yet YOU continue to assert that I do say that Diebold's systems are reliable.

                    Why do you get such an apparent thrill from lying like this? Either you are simply reading comprehension-impaired, and you cannot understand my simple, repeated assertion that I do NOT like Diebold, or you are simply a fool who thinks it makes you look good to lie about me - which is it? Are you ignorant or a liar? Because at this point in time there is no other option.

                    I have clearly said that I do not support Diebold.

                    You have no evidence that I do support them, or that I ever have supported them.

                    So your continuing assertion that I do support Diebold means that you are a liar or a fool - which is it?

                    Oh, and by the way.

                    Use of occasional capitalization is NOT shouting.

                    Look it up. Under Netiquette - it'll tell ya that capitalizing EVERYTHING is shouting - capitalizing some words, for emphasis, is totally acceptable and is not shouting.

                    Maybe you can learn ONE thing from this interaction - let it be about emphasising particular words in written conversation to emphasis them the way one would if one were having a spoken conversation. Since you cannot hear me, the ONLY way to show emphasis is by emphasising some words.

                    Yet again, not rocket science.

                    But feel free to look it up for yourself. There's a difference between all caps and one word out of 20 being capitalized.

                    ...but not your own facts.

                    by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:15:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  And what makes you think (0+ / 0-)

              that I was referring to you?

              •  Duhhhhh (0+ / 0-)

                Can YOU say Duh?

                I know you can - because you just did.

                You were baselessly describing people LIKE me in a false and misleading way.

                Yet again, because YOU cannot debate the facts, you resort to personal attacks.

                You suggest that because I knew you were talking about people like me that somehow that means that I buy into YOUR description of people like me.

                Except that those two things need not follow one another.

                The fact that I knew you were talking about people like me does NOT mean that I bought into your descriptions, and in fact mean NOTHING about the validity of your descriptions.

                What is NOT interesting is YOUR inability to debate the facts in a fair and accurate way.

                People that cannot debate the facts, and must resort to personal attacks, show the weakness in THEIR positions.

                That's what YOU did.

                And I called you on it.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:45:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, and THIS is PRICELESS (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:


                From March 19th...

                If anyone is in the mood #86421
                Posted by ms in la on March 19, 2006 - 3:47pm.
                Bev Harris is getting chewed up by the usual trolls over at Kos on this diary.  Could use some support...


                Diebold obviously has it's operatives on the blogs slamming at these stories and at Bev's work in helping to expose them.  I know the whole anti-BBV crowd is vehemently angry at her, but to totally distract from the issue to whine about it seems suspect to me...


                In fact, Bev Harris destroyed her OWN credibility. Once again, the criminal's defense that the cop or the informant or the judge are responsible for the criminal being in jail, when in fact it is the crimes that the criminal committed that got the criminal in trouble.

                It is Bev Harris' own behavior that put her in a position to be attacked.

                And HERE we have evidence of YOU recruiting people to come and fight battles on HER behalf just a couple of weeks ago.

                And here we see you and others alleging that it is those who have debunked BBV and Bev Harris who are the organized group gathered to protect their pet project, when in fact it's quite clear who in fact does that.

                Like I said, many times, people who behave in certain slimy ways will accuse others of also being willing to behave in those same slimy ways.

                Thanks for giving us a prime example here.

                Because YOU gather YOUR Bev Harris supporters together to defend her against legitimate attacks, you assert that we would do the same thing.

                Except that I don't just comment on Bev Harris threads. I DON'T blindly support Diebold. And I do NOT object to legitimate concerns about electronic voting.

                So, except for the fact that we are totally different, we are exactly alike, aren't we!!!

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:11:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  For example, on THIS thread (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Sybil has not made a single post, yet she recommended this post by you.

            Gosh, it almost seems like there's a team that has an unparalleled need to conclude that Bev Harris can do no wrong!

            We have clear evidence that Bev Harris has people who post here and recommend here ONLY on these issues.

            Markos was SO pissed about the election fraud conspiracy theory diaries several months ago that he banned them.

            He was so pissed about Bev Harris' behavior that he banned her a couple of weeks ago.

            And WE are the ones that have no credibility? The strident anger that is disproportinate to the known bad deeds are the BBV'ers that assert election fraud has happened when all we know in MOST cases is that it could have happened.

            If ALL that was happening was hinting at nefarious actions by Diebold, it would be one thing.

            But that's not all that has happened. Over and over again.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 10:28:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, so what you are saying is... (0+ / 0-)

          That the voting machines would have to be left UNSECURED so that someone could fuck with the memory card.

          Just like a dishonest elections official could fuck with paper ballots, right?

          How are paper ballots ANY better?

          And until an independent, impartial group gets the same findings as BBV got, we will never know what the actual findings are - BBV does NOT come out and make hardly any hard findings, but rather tries to assert that bad things could happen, and we found things, and we will tell you more about them later.

          ...but not your own facts.

          by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 06:42:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I guess THIS never happened, either (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        This series of still images walks you through what Dean saw live on CNBC, via screenshots.

        I guess it all comes down to:
        If Diebold's got nothing to hide,
        why are they so secretive?

        Why are they so opposed to

        (not their hand-picked testers either)

        Paper Ballots. Hand Counting.
        Problem solved.

        Paper, Pen & People!

        "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing" -Thomas Jefferson

        by BillORightsMan on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:58:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sen Bowen: a disability issue you can use (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, MissLaura, saucy monkey, kurt

    Senator Bowen-

    Many of the technicalities you describe sound exactly like what occurs when people who are mildly dyslexic try to fill out forms, particularly the item about drivers' license numbers not matching.  

    Dyelexia is a perceptual disability in which strings of alphabetical and/or numeric characters can get randomly inverted.  For example, the telephone number 555-2368 can end up coming out as 555-2638.  

    This is more common than it seems, and a large number of people are mildly dyslexic to the point where they may be making these types of errors but not be diagnosed.   Speaking from experience here, it took until a couple of years after college before I figured out that I have this problem.  The difference it made to know what was going on, was the difference between a D- in undergrad social science statistics, and an A- in graduate-level social science statistics.  Knowing what was happening made it possible to compensate for it.  

    The issue for voting is, dyslexics are notoriously bad at filling out forms; think of it as looking at the form and your brain get it as something like a double-image that is out of sync, almost as if your eyes are crossed but not quite.  And it happens at a level where they may not even be aware of it.

    What I see going on with these "technicalities" is that the effect is to disproprtionately deny voting rights to people with mild or undiagnosed dyslexia.  And as you know, discrimination does not require discriminatory intent, it only requires that there be a discriminatory effect.  

    This is pretty clearly a disability rights issue. And it should be pursued as such.

    Thanks for all of your efforts on voting rights issues; keep up the good fight!

    -g2geek, Oakland CA

    •  interesting, especially as it was 'equal access' (0+ / 0-)

      for disabled people, required under the Help American Vote Act, that was a key positive factor for local elections officials when it came to choosing touchscreen voting machines for their new voting systems.

  •  California citizen here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sacrelicious, boofdah

    and happy to help out. Thank you for making it so easy.  You're a credit to this state.

    Now this is a diary I can recommend!

    "As you get older, you get less willing to buy the latest version of reality." Leonard Cohen

    by mentaldebris on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 02:52:30 PM PDT

  •  Press Release Just Received from Sen. Perata (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jennifer poole, ortcutt, cosette, JohnB47, kurt

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                                                    Contact: Alicia Dlugosh

    April 6, 2006                                                                                                                    


    SACRAMENTO--Senate President pro Tem Don Perata and Senator Debra Bowen

    (D-Redondo Beach) Chair of the Senate Elections Committee, today called on Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to change regulations that could prevent eligible California voters from participating in the June primary election.

    “Today’s hearing by the Senate Elections Committee shows valid California voters could be disenfranchised because registration verification regulations adopted by the Secretary of State are more restrictive than any other state in the nation,” Perata said.  “These regulations need to be fixed in time for the June primary election.  It’s not enough to wait until the election passes to see how many people were affected.”

    “The deal the Secretary of State cut with the Bush Administration five months ago has been a disaster for anyone who is trying to register for the first time or re-register because they moved, got married and need to change their name, or want to change parties,” Bowen said. “When you hear testimony that California is probably going to lead the nation in terms of disenfranchising voters, it tells you the Secretary of State needs to fix the system.”

    Federal law requires states to follow new voting regulation requirements.  New voter registrations or updates to existing registration now require either a driver’s license number or the last 4 digits of the voter’s Social Security number.  Previously, registration applicants did not have to furnish either piece of information.  Since the January 1, 2006 implementation with language more restrictive than the federal law, droves of otherwise valid California voter registrations have been rejected by the statewide database, County registrars are required to individually contact voters to verify information and the voting eligibility of many Californians is in question.

    Perata added he is confident that if the Secretary of State does not fix the regulations, the legislature will act to do so.

    -9.25 -9.18 Barbara Lee and Howard Dean speak for me

    by laurak on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 03:08:15 PM PDT

  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

    Senator. I've already e-mailed my state senator and assemblymember and I've also sent them a letter.

  •  Bowen for Gov! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Debra, I wish you were running for Governor.  I've seen you speak twice this election season already, and I am so impressed with you.  You are the future of the Democratic Party in California, even if Angelides or Westly will be at the top of the ticket.  You're smart, composed, astute, and fun.  Keep up the good work!

    (and I'm not normally such a sycophant - haha)

    -7.63, -5.79 The Christian Right is neither.

    by sfluke on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 03:51:06 PM PDT

    •  thank you! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Orj ozeppi, cosette

      I'm humbled.  

      And I'm also really angry!  There are nine states who are using this data standard, though I don't know if the others are experiencing the same  kinds of problems.

      I'm outraged that it's April 6, and we are finally getting the attention of our SOS ... but more on his decision not to make changes in his emergency regulations, coming below.

      We have elections in California on April 11.  The end of the canvass is only a few weeks away.  Eligible voters who've filled out a proper voter registration form are going to be disenfranchised without even knowing it!

  •  I have a question about provisional votes (0+ / 0-)

    Debra Bowen says that provisional votes won't count unless the voter contacts the proper authorities before the election canvass is over.

    What exactly does that mean?

    I was under the impression that provisional votes WOULD count, and in fact NONE of these people have been denied the right to vote, but will have to file a provisional ballot.

    They cannot do many things, and will not get some stuff in the mail, and that is a flaw that should be fixed as soon as possible.

    But they will be allowed to vote with a provisional ballot - either at early voting or on election day - was my understanding. What exactly does it mean when Bowen says

    Provisional votes will not be counted unless the voter contacts the registrar before the close of the election canvass.

    Do you mean to suggest that a voter who votes on election day must contact the registrar on election day with proof that they are a legitimately-registered voter? When I have seen how provisional ballots work, the burden is on the elections officials to verify the ballot using ID provided by the voter and then comparing that with their records.

    ...but not your own facts.

    by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 04:02:39 PM PDT

    •  Provisonal Ballots may NOT be counted! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sybil Liberty, ms in la, kurt


      Unless the registrar can contact the voter by mail, by phone or in person to verify an otherwise "fatally pended" registration (to use the SOS' term) before the close of the canvass, a provisional ballot will NOT be counted.

      Provisional ballots are counted if an error by the ROV kept an eligible voter off the rolls -- but in this situation, the elibigle voter never got ON the rolls to begin with.  Again, if the registration cannot be verified by contact with the voter before the close of canvass, the person is not a registered voter -- end of story.

      In L.A. County, there is great difficulty reaching people by phone, and among those who are reached, there are many who refuse to provide their social security number or driver's license number to some person calling them purporting to be from the registrar's office -- but who might just as well be an identity thief sitting in his pajamas 5,000 miles away.

      I certainly wouldn't give MY social security number out over the telephone on a phone call I did not initiate.  I pioneered the bill that forced the SSN off records as an identifier due to concerns about identity theft and fraud.

      •  Well, I trust that as a Senator you would know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But this exact point has been made previously and we were told that these potential voters would be able to vote using provisional ballots.

        We were told that these voters did get 'on the rolls', but only provisionally.

        Here's the info about provisional ballots

        And from the Contra Costa Times

        About one-third of the 3,500 Contra Costa residents who registered to vote since January have been rejected. Those eligible voters can still go to the polls with identification but will receive a provisional ballot -- often counted weeks after the election.


        Still, eligible voters who have registered would not be turned away from the polls, Lopez said.

        Even if those voters do not receive a sample ballot in the mail, she said, they can vote by going to their polling place and providing an ID or part of their Social Security number. They would receive provisional ballots, which are counted last.

        This story was posted on April 4th. So what do YOU know that they did NOT know?

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 05:23:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not all provisional ballots are counted (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fabooj, missliberties, cosette, kurt

          This story just says people can cast provisional ballots, which is true (that is, if they know where to vote, and what ballot type they should get -- which most people learn by getting their sample ballot).

          The story also says provisional ballots are counted last -- also true.

          But only provisional ballots that are cleared by a check of the voter rolls are counted. Otherwise people could vote provisionally to get around the requirement to register. The verification of provisional ballots is also there to prevent fraudulent ballots from being counted.

          In other words, casting a provisional ballot is not the same as having it counted.

          I can provide a more definitive source, but not from the comfort of my funky old Airstream.  :)

          •  Thank your for your efforts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ms in la

            Good Gawd this is so very important!

            inspire change...don't back down

            by missliberties on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 05:45:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  So why do you assume that they won't? (0+ / 0-)

            You said

            Unless the registrar can contact the voter by mail, by phone or in person to verify an otherwise "fatally pended" registration (to use the SOS' term) before the close of the canvass, a provisional ballot will NOT be counted.

            Why would you assume that someone who fills out a provisional ballot will not then know, because they are FORCED to fill out a provisional ballot, that they have to make sure the registrar figures out who they are? Earlier you said that the voters MUST contact the registrar - are you now saying that the registrar can make the determination on their own?

            But only provisional ballots that are cleared by a check of the voter rolls are counted.

            And, like I said, in my experience, registrars CAN make a determination on their own, by comparing names like "John OBrien" and "John O'Brien" and making a determination all on his own that those two names match.

            I am simply trying to figure out exactly what the facts are.

            Your diary suggests that many provisional votes might not count. My interpretation, and everything I have read up to this point, simply said that these voters will have to cast provisional ballots. It seems like you are saying that there is some high hurdle that must be surmounted.

            Now, it IS true that these voters will NOT get sample ballots. It is true that these voters will be disadvantaged. But the implication I got from your diary was that these voters' ballots were not likely to be counted, and I see no evidence that this is the case for most of them that simply had minor problems - when they go to cast ballots, they will find out that there was an issue.

            You want to fight to eliminate this problem? That's great. You want to ensure that those voters who DO have to cast provisional ballots get clear instructions on how to make sure the registrar counts their votes? I am all for it. But I still think that your implication that many of these provisional votes won't count is overstating the case - when they have to vote via provisional ballot, they will then KNOW that there is an issue, and I believe they will be told at that point in time what they need to do to verify their eligibility to vote.

            It's not right that this attempt to help fix voting problems has caused this issue, and I want it fixed - for California and any other state. But overstating the case by suggesting that many provisional votes won't get counted because the registrar doesn't know how to contact people TODAY is not right. Because they are not fully registered, they won't get all the info they could get before the election, and that WILL disenfranchise some voters, and that's wrong, and should be fixed.

            My ONLY issue is with the implication that there is some big deal about provisional ballots cast by these people not being counted after they are made - I KNOW that sometimes provisional ballots are NOT counted, but with these people, it should be a fairly smooth process considering the things that will hold up their voter registration.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 06:27:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why do this in a way that causes so many problems (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ortcutt, ms in la, kurt

              I started to reply to the technical issues -- then realized that misses the point.

              There is nothing in HAVA, which was supposed to HELP America Vote, that requires this result.  And there is no good, common sense justification for insisting on keeping a system that fails so many eligible voters so regularly.

              Let me refer you to an earlier discussion on Winds of Change, in which Armed Liberal concludes:

              "[it] isn't that people with mismatched info weren't registered, it's that "these individuals are now fatally pended on the CalVoter system." If someone working for me wrote a system that handled frequent exceptions that lamely, I'd fire them."

              The specifics of Los Angeles County's experience, which I will not repeat here, are in that post.  I've since learned that the match requirements include an exact match of the first three letters of the surname -- hence the O'Brien/OBrien/O Brien mismatch.

              The logistics of clearing tens of thousands of voters at the polls are nightmarish.  Why would you do that if you could have a system that worked better in the first place?

              Why shouldn't we demand that Secretary of State correct his regulations NOW and, if necessary, revise the Memorandum of Understanding with the Bush Administration's Department of Justice?

              •  Why am I not surprised? (0+ / 0-)

                You totally failed to answer my question.

                As I clearly said in my post, I have NO problem with trying to stop voters from being disenfranchised. I understand that because these voters are NOT fully registered, they will NOT get all the pre-election info that they could get, and that is not right. I have NO problem with about 90% of what you said.

                But you clearly implied that many provisional ballots would NOT be counted because it's hard to contact voters. But if they MAKE a provisional ballot, then they will KNOW that there was a problem with their registration.

                I NEVER, EVER, not even ONCE, said that this was a good way to do it.

                You can apologize ANY TIME for implying that I EVER said that this was a good way to do it.

                I have been asserting SINCE the start that MY ONE issue is with YOUR implication that many provisional ballots won't count because it is hard to contact voters BEFORE the election. I see NO evidence that it's true.

                I have NEVER said that the system is good as it is - I was ALWAYS arguing against your implication about the effects upon provisional ballots.

                So WHY are you accusing me of suggesting that it is?

                And why didn't you answer my simple question?

                My question was 'why do you assume that many provisional ballots will not count?' Given the facts, that does NOT seem to be a reasonable implication, yet it IS the one you repeatedly left on the table, and it is THAT implication that I have an issue with.

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 07:49:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am not in Ca but Wa has similar issues. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ms in la

                  I am a longtime observer of elections in King Co WA. I know firsthand how otherwise valid provisional ballots do not get counted when the manpower and logistics cannot process the required verifications of provisional ballots that kick out of the system due to errors on either the voters or the registrars part.

                  and let's get something straight. The Republican counterparts of mine who also observe the elections, are just as suspicious of the Diebold equipment as any Democrat.

                  As much as we all value the concept of going to the polls, we are pretty much in agreement in King CO that all vote by mail will remove the two largest "features" suspected of potential hacks in the system by making the remote memory card in polling places as well as allowing modems to call in to transmit the results into the GEMS tabulator on election night.

                  Any one who works deeply with computers (as many of us in Seattle do) understands the potential for fraud is just as important as the proof of actual fraud. What we CAN see of the older versions of the source code clearly indicates an amazing lack of concern with security and accountability. What this should imply to a reasonable person may vary but one thing easily provable is that the Nevada gaming commission (and the tribal gaming commissions here in WA) would laugh till they fell out of their chairs if the same combination of code and hardware were submitted by Diebold for it's gaming machines.

                  Should gambling and video poker be held to a higher standard than voting equipment?

                  I don't think so. Some here think that corporations should be held as innocent until proven guilty while at the same time implying that no entity has the right to investigate the same corporations due to it's assertion of "copyright" and "trade secret" laws.

                  I understand some folks being loath to lose faith in computers but those of us who fix them recognize it for exactly that, Faith. I work with hundreds of people who would descend into paralysis if they did not have this irrational faith that their computer is always right.

                  One of my former employers took advantage of this situation and probably has more than one adware/spyware program one your computer right now.

                  Do you understand how spyware works? Do you doubt the existance? Do you think the software you paid for always does exactly what you think it does?

                  Good luck.

                  -- If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. * Noam Chomsky

                  by NCrefugee on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 05:57:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Note NO response from Senator Bowen (0+ / 0-)

                  I asked a simple question.

                  Because she basically LIED in her diary by implying that many provisional ballots won't count.

                  There is only a small chance that any provisional ballots cast will not count.

                  So, I asked her a question 2 different times.

                  Once, she avoided answering it.

                  The second time she said that she CONSIDERED answering it but decided to address a whole different issue in her response to me.

                  The third time I asked the SAME question, a question that she COULD have simply answered (but the answer would have have PROVED that she basically lied in her diary), she simply failed to respond at all.

                  And THIS is someone we should take advice from/listen to with keen ears/give credibility to?

                  So, I did a little looking.

                  Guess what I found?

                  She is a long-time BBV person.

                  There's a transcript of her berating and harassing two people on a BBV forum.

                  She's NOT an independent, impartial person.

                  What a shock!

                  ...but not your own facts.

                  by slouise217 on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:19:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Provisionals won't count if reg. isn't verified. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ms in la

                    If you are going to use "but not your own facts" as a tag line ... you should stick to the facts.

                    I have never berated or harrassed anyone on any forum, including BBV, at any time.  I note that you provide no cite, no link and no evidence for your claims, so I will let readers make their own judgments.  I can understand you pressing for any answer (long after everyone else has left this thread ... ) but inventing your own facts?   hmmm.

                    As to the provisional ballots not being counted until the registration is cleared, that is a correct statement of the law, and there is, therefore, no source that you can or will find that accurately reports otherwise.  

                    Here's a recent report of the facts, from a March 31, 2006 story in the Riverside Press-Enterprise headlined  "Voter verification scrutinized   REGISTRATION: County registrars in the Inland area say 30 percent are rejected in Sacramento":

                    Registrars fear that they may not have enough time to remedy rejected registrations that come in close to the election — something that in many cases requires tracking down the voter. Those voters might not receive sample or absentee ballots and would have to cast provisional ballots, which are not counted until registration is confirmed.

                    If a potential registration is still in "fatal pend" status (the term used by the Secretary of State) at the time the provisional ballot is checked against the statewide voter database, that registration cannot possibly be confirmed, because that voter's name will not be on the statewide voter database -- and that voter's ballot will, consequently, not be counted unless an error that caused the fatal pend in the first place is corrected before the close of canvass.  

                    The close of canvass when the final determination of a voter's right to vote is made, and that determination controls whether a provisionally cast ballot will be counted.

                    After a great deal of public pressure, the Secretary of State has finally begun making changes in his protocols and rules, allowing the correction of some of the data mismatches without the need to contact individual voters.  This will result in a smaller percentage of eligible voters being placed on the "fatal pend" list rather than on the voter database (where provisional voting is not required, and both sample and absentee ballots can be sent).  

                    But only some of the issues have been resolved.  Further changes are needed in order to prevent eligible voters from being disenfranchised.

  •  why aren't lists of registered voters available (0+ / 0-)


    Voter registration and party affiliation are public records, are they not?

    Am I missing something here?

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 04:07:17 PM PDT

    •  After the Rebecca Schafer murder, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      California made driver's license records and voter registration subject to limited public disclosure.

      Schafer was murdered by a stalker who got her home address from the DMV by walking up to the counter and paying $4 for a copy of her records.

      To get voter records, you must fill out a form saying that you will use them for political, research or journalistic purposes (or something like that).

      I assume no one puts down "stalking" as a reason for requesting records!

      The records of the Limbo Voters are in a particularly difficult legal status.  I was told this morning that because an eligible voter who has filed an affadavit but is not yet registered due to a mismatch, computer error or whatever is not yet a voter, there is no provision that allows a registrar to release those names.

      So we are in a triple bind, at least.  We don't know who has been "fatally pended."  The ROV's are having trouble contacting people.  And no one else can find out who the "fatal pends" are.  

      We have only the reports we've received to go on!

      If you know someone who has had a problem, please, please ask them to contact me:

  •  This happened to my husband (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We moved inside Orange County (yeah, I know) in February.  I went online to have my registration changed, and my husband went to the DMV.  I got my card and my ballot last week for the special election here, but my husband didn't.  Then we read about this whole disaster.  He called the OC registrar of voters and they told him they "have a lot of problems with the DMV" and that was why there is no record of his registration.  They told him to go to the post office and try again.  WTF?  We are absolutely livid.  We wrote to McPherson, but so far, no reply.

  •  Senator Bowen here (7+ / 0-)

    I'm here live to read comments and answer questions.  I learned some very interesting things this morning.

    To correct my original post, middle name / middle initial discrepancies should NOT cause a mismatch -- but if your surname is O'Brien, it will not match O Brien or OBrien.

    The same is true with de la Torre and dela Torre, and some Asian surnames present a problem because it is not clear in our computer databases if Gloria Soo Hoo would be recorded as having "Soo Hoo" or "Hoo" as a surname.

    In New York and VA, under comparable circumstances, about 20% of the problems were caused by typos in the data entry!!!!

    Let me start with this, and read comments for a bit.

    Sorry to be slow getting to you all -- my campaign "office" in Sacramento is in an old Airstream Safarai travel trailer, circa 1966, and all this rain sent the power on the fritz!

  •  SOS wants to renew emergency regs with no changes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BillORightsMan, saucy monkey, kurt

    This is from the filing made by the SOS yesterday (4/5/2006) to renew the emergency regulations exactly as they are:

    “Based on communications received from counties and individuals concerning the regulations, the Secretary of State has concluded that the need for changes or additions to the regulations may only become apparent once their functionality has been observed in the course of an actual election.   Accordingly, the Secretary of State has determined that it is in the best interests of the voters of this state to readopt the emergency regulations prior to their current expiration deadline [April 11], and wait until after the June 6, 2006 election to begin the process or revising the regulations and implementing them on a permanent basis.”

    Anyone out there think it is not apparent that changes need to be made NOW?  

    If we wait until after the California primary, we'll disenfranchise eligible voters in the April 11 elections (including CD-50, to replace Randy "Duke" Cunningham) and in our June 6th primary.

    Note that I'm not a completely disinterested observer -- unlike the current Secretary of State, I have a primary election to win on June 6th -- or I won't be able to challenge him in November!!!!

    •  You are a regular BBV'er, aren't you? (0+ / 0-)

      She says that we will disenfranchise voters, when there is, in fact, little chance that any voter who casts a provisional ballot will be disenfranchised based upon the scenario she has provided here.

      And when I challenged her on THIS VERY POINT, she avoided answering my query on two separate posts, and then simply failed to respond at all.

      And then, of course, she suggested that she was having power outage issues, and THAT is why she could not reply in a timely fashion sometimes.

      Hmmm, why does that sound like a Bev Harris has to leave for the airport kinda response so that she can avoid responding to queries that would show her up to be a deceitful person?

      ...but not your own facts.

      by slouise217 on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:24:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is not about BBV (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ms in la

        This is about whether eligible voters will be disenfranchised by errors in the voting rolls.

        Answer on the provisional question is above.

        You enjoy baiting people, I see.  I'm not much interested in that sport.  I want every eligible voter to able to vote, once, and by regular ballot -- not by provisional ballot.  I want every ballot to be counted as it was cast.  

        Simple, but basic to a functioning democracy.

  •  No More Dirty Tricks (0+ / 0-)

    If this goes through, it must be challenged.

    This is a ridiculous disenfranchisement of democracy!

    Should we broadcast this to the MIddle East? This is
    how America's democracy works, by disenfranchising voters.

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 05:44:18 PM PDT

  •  looking forward (0+ / 0-)

    According to my source at the Brennan Center, Iowa, Texas, South Dakota and Washington State are on tap with similar problems (see the report linked to by Senator Bowen above), and may be the next battleground states on this issue.

  •  Clarification needed... (0+ / 0-)

    I'm registered in CA, same address for 5+ years.  Am I to understand that my voter info will be checked against DMV (other sources?) too, or is this limited to registrations since January?

    If not, is there a timetable for doing all the retroactive checks?  Bad timing doesn't begin to describe this, even if it were a good idea in the first place.

    •  Registrations and changes to registrations (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ortcutt, Sybil Liberty

      This is all new starting 1/1/2006.

      At this point voter info for prior voters are not being checked.

      Anyone who moves, changes party affiliation (even without moving) or changes name (regardless or whether or not they move) is subject to the match.

      California is using a set of criteria that only a few other states are using.  It is possible -- as other states have demonstrated -- to implement HAVA without dumping so many voters from the rolls!

  •  Los Angeles County residents! (0+ / 0-)

    Do take a few minutes to send an email to your County supervisor and follow it up with a telephone call.

    1st District: Gloria Molina & 213-974-4111
    2nd District: Yvonne B. Burke & 213-974-2222
    3rd District: Zev Yaroslavsky & 213-974-3333
    4th District: Don Knabe web form & 213-974-4444
    5th District: Mike Antonovich web form & 213-974-5555

    Use this to find your supervisor.  And if that doesn't work, then check out the different district sites from the main site to try to find your district, or simply call one of the numbers above and ask them if you've got the right district based on your address.

    Considering these five supervisors run a county of 10 million people with a budget in the multi-billions, you'd think they'd have a lot of constituent compaints.  However, they're used to relative obscurity -- so getting a very small number of calls and emails really could get their panties in a bunch.

  •  Isn't this against the voters rights act? (0+ / 0-)

    I mean it's not supposed to be a difficult, huge, deal to vote.  Isn't it up to the state government to comply with regulations that make it easy to vote?

  •  Back in Michigan Where I Lived (0+ / 0-)

    The Secretary of State Office handles both voter registration and motor vehicle issues (DL, ect), so the motor-voter process is seamless. However, I worked in a local elections office and know it's incredibly easy to mess up a VR with a typo, so we were always extra careful.

    On a side note, Michigan law required that, to vote for the first time, must show up at the polls. Is this the case here in CA, or may I immediately start voting absentee?

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 11:56:32 PM PDT

    •  First Time Voters (0+ / 0-)

      who register by mail must present ID before they vote for the first time.  (Presumably if you register in person, which not many people do, you showed ID at the time you registered.)

      That is a HAVA requirement. Its intent is to keep fraudulent registrations from being used.

  •  We really commend your hard work! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jen, ms in la

    The GOPs culture of corruption and cronism infects every American institution.  Thanks for keeping up with the big fight in CA.  You're terrific, Debra!! :)

  •  Same pattern (0+ / 0-)

    Coming to your state soon.

    Folks, those of us in other states need to be on the lookout for this, proactive about it to whatever extent we can be.

    Good luck, Californians.

    It's the "anti-fear-propaganda" solution: positive news: HeroicStories, free

    by AllisonInSeattle on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 01:39:05 AM PDT

  •  Question for SF (0+ / 0-)

    What kind of voting system does San Francisco use?

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 02:05:00 AM PDT

Malacandra, arthur, norm, maxomai, Aexia, Alumbrados, shari, davej, Vince CA, AustinSF, Manix, Go Vegetarian, Monkeypox, Terri, Marek, zentiger, copithorne, pb, jps, miriam, Thomas Kalinowski, Irfo, Pacific John, VAdem, randompost, jennifer poole, eugene, Sally in SF, fouro, Grand Poobah, ogre, Fiat Lux, laurak, bolson, chassler, gogol, AlanF, joejoejoe, Liberal Thinking, Tulip, moon in the house of moe, El Payo, ubikkibu, tiggers thotful spot, demnomore, Pandora, vancookie, McHaskel, BrooklynRaider, janinsanfran, RunawayRose, Winger, Maryscott OConnor, dday, bosdcla14, ortcutt, Shockwave, JulieIde, SanJoseLady, meg, genethefiend, democat, Orj ozeppi, candace in sonoma, lobezno, Raven Brooks, DemDachshund, x, reggiesmom, d3n4l1, RandyMI, velvetdays, dash888, marjo, delver rootnose, lilorphant, SallyCat, voltayre, shpilk, bumblebums, zeroooo, exNYinTX, nightsweat, Karthik R, silence, deaniac83, strengthANDwisdom, fabooj, agoldnyc, concernedamerican, emmanuel, bronte17, ganto, Intellectually Curious, PeteB2, medaka, sponson, gladkov, Einsteinia, mentaldebris, daisy democrat, SamSinister, understandinglife, lpackard, Baldwiny, biscobosco, highacidity, ses, DaveP, mhale85, Scoopster, Patricia Taylor, mkfarkus, marchmoon, Transmission, chimpy, roses, chechecule, Prove Our Democracy with Paper Ballots, Ignacio Magaloni, peraspera, murphsurf, sgilman, bincbom, Fe, dchill, maven98, bwren, not lois, corncam, Nate Roberts, matt2525, marysz, Cedwyn, Alna Dem, celticshel, rentogen, Chrisfs, nio, suzq, Braindead, kharma, Moody Loner, SlowToAnger, DeadB0y, missliberties, leftout, Gruvkitty, mad ramblings of a sane woman, hoolia, baxxor, cosette, smash, Caldonia, Jill Lehnert, Black Maned Pensator, joan reports, Penny Century, dwahzon, johnj, LeftyLimblog, DriftawayNH, socal, lcrp, AnthonySF, 313to212, kismet, coigue, Democratic Hawk, fritzrth, dcookie, bwintx, AnonymousArmy, jinny, Ayanora, Sam Loomis, parkslopper50, seanleckey, Sembtex, mattes, sfbrentb, zappini, MollyM, plymouth, pHatidic, Nelsons, ArkySue, jen, DrReason, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, sfluke, Marianne Benz, Steven D, HK, Little Red Hen, patginsd, Knightrider, DrewDown, justmy2, zannie, rickeagle, kd texan, vacantlook, solesse413, Sybil Liberty, Timroff, faithfull, Shapeshifter, CA Amy, Gowrie Gal, gradinski chai, MichDeb, Skennet Boch, ms in la, Fiction59 Fool On The Hill, Tarindel, rstnfld, Elise, baccaruda, MasonLee, LisaZ, Alice Marshall, PBen, Geronimo, Webster, panicbean, Bad Cog, station wagon, juliesie, Ajax the Greater, Ranting Roland, Reg NYC, Sophie Blue, Monkey In Chief, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, zackmann, curtadams, majcmb1, Pam from Calif, Sharon in MD, truebeliever, concerned, jorndorff, washingtonsmith, perky mcjuggs, jcitybone, calderonn, Yamara, cinemabee, Thelaff, dspivak, DblTrbl4Me, HiBob, Zergle, Five Thirty, wiscmass, Pitin, Cory Bantic, Spathiphyllum, empathy, Indiana Bob, agent double o soul, Alan Arizona, rigger, Eloi Scientist, bently, Alliance for a Better California, Mehitabel9, Reality Bites Back, Cletus from Canuckistan, tjhunter1234, occams hatchet, andreuccio, trashablanca, millertwin2, Ranchita, PoppyRocks, kraant, tarheelblue, Distaste for Dissent, BlueInARedState, Provgressive, tonyahky, Ellicatt, theyrereal, deha, XStryker, poichick, dangangry, goodwill, Sassy725, CSI Bentonville, SherriG, TalkieToaster, MJ via Chicago, zorba, jmaps, OneCrankyDom, imabluemerkin, NearlyNormal, slv0000, mang glider, blitz boy, Freedom Fries Artist, jnfass, means are the ends, kurt, pissedpatriot, Snarcalita, procera

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site