FL-13 Monday 12/18/2006 Update

This diary is part of a continuing series of diaries to keep attention on the FL-13 missing votes.

From the The Tallahassee Democrat

Showdown's coming to town This Tuesday, Christine Jennings and her attorneys will appear before Leon County Circuit Court Judge William L. Gary at 1 p.m., in Room 2F of the courthouse. They will seek to obtain what lawyer Kendall Coffey of Miami calls "the DNA" of the problem.

Ms. Jennings, a Democrat who by just 369 votes lost the race to apparent winner Vern Buchanan, a Republican, isn't accusing anyone of shenanigans.

"We think the world of negligence is much larger than the world of maliciousness," Mr. Coffey told the Democrat's editorial board last week
E-glitch, Sarasota mess creates a test case

much more below the fold

A story from Sarasota Hearld Tribune states:"a 100 percent chance" that Jennings would have won the race if ...., article and report links follow.

In a Dec. 3 report, which he wrote in collaboration with political scientists from UCLA and the University of Rochester, Herron said that there was "a 100 percent chance" that Jennings would have won the race if Sarasota voters had been voting in Charlotte County, where there was a much smaller undervote in the congressional race between Jennings and Republican Vern Buchanan. Newpaper Story and the study Ballot Formats, Touchscreens, and Undervotes: A Study of the 2006 Midterm Elections in Florida

LA Times story from Sunday includes much of the Republican talking points and spin:

Partisan battle boils over Fla. House seat
A dispute over a GOP victory may test Pelosi's pledge to keep peace.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
December 17, 2006

WASHINGTON — Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi's pledge to bring bipartisan peace to that most partisan of institutions — the House of Representatives — could be put to a test early in the new Congress by an election dispute in Florida.

When the Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January, Pelosi may have to decide whether to seek to deny the certified GOP winner of a Florida House seat from taking office. LA Times Story

Remember, this dispute is not about partisan politics, it is about 18,000 voters whose votes didn't register on the *!*#*$** machines. The voters deserve our support and our democracy requires it (if we are to have a democracy).

More from the LA times story, would Pelosi even consider this, I hope not:

If Pelosi decides to pursue that route, her new majority presumably would vote for it. But a source close to the Democratic leadership, who requested anonymity when discussing party strategy, said Pelosi probably would let Buchanan take office while ordering an investigation by the House Administration Committee into whether a new election was warranted. LA Times Story

Sarasota Herald Tribune Editorial was all over the issue on Sunday, ending with:

If this were a frivolous contest and if the margin between the candidates had been wide, it would be time to move on. But significant problems with Sarasota County's voting machines and ballots were reported before Nov. 7 -- prompting a directive to poll workers and voters from the supervisor of elections -- and there is no verifiable paper trail for matching votes and tallies.

Should this contested election drag on forever? No.

Do the stakes warrant the completion of the state-ordered audit and a fair hearing of the lawsuit? Yes. The case for Jennings, Stakes demand completion of audit, fair hearing of her challenge

The Tallhassee Democrat opined on Sunday, ending with:

Ultimately, Congress must receive Ms. Jennings' "notice of contest." If Judge Gary declines to order a look at the software, this case could play out in Congress - which rarely gets "no" for an answer when it orders evidence to be brought forth.

Ms. Jennings' political future is of interest to the people downstate in the 13th Congressional District. But the much larger issue in Florida and nationwide is how to identify the problems that make voting technology unstable enough to undermine confidence in our electoral system.

That needs to be addressed and rectified - and certainly before another presidential election rolls around.

Judge Gary, the ball's in your court. E-glitch, Sarasota mess creates a test case

Finally a Monday Florida editorial that makes sense of what is going on, closes with these comments:

If touch screens work, open 'brain' and prove it Palm Beach Post Editorial - Monday, December 18, 2006

Ms. Jennings' case is about more than who fills the only still-being-contested seat in the 110th Congress. It's about the viability of touch-screen voting.

The machines on trial have been the subject of testing by state and federal officials and the object of criticism from computer scientists and dedicated opponents. The former say the machines work fine. The latter say that, through malice or by chance, the machines alter the voter's will. The national debate converged on Sarasota County, where 55 percent of the voters backed a measure to replace the county's $4.7 million touch-screen system with optical-scan ballots.

Ms. Jennings' best argument is the least technical. If the machines are not to blame, why wouldn't the manufacturer allow the most thorough review? If it's to protect company secrets, the court can maintain confidentiality. Such scrutiny is more likely to become the rule as states become more aggressive. For instance, Minnesota requires that the source code be made available in races that require recounts. Imagine if this race decided who gets the majority in the House? For the sake of voter confidence, manufacturers must be subjected to more scrutiny, not less.

It's true that Ms. Jennings has no case without the source code. It's also true that there are larger issues here than whether the Democrats will have a 31- or 33-vote advantage in the next Congress. Editorial Link

Washington Post - No story since 11/29/06
New York Times - No story since 11/26/06
Houston Chronicle - No story since 12/7/06
Chicago Tribune - No story since 11/21/06

Links

great link to vote counting news stories, updated daily
Voting news articles at VotersUnite.org

donate
Christine Jennings Recount Fund

FL-13: Carl Hiassen lays the smackdown, Sun 12/17/2006
FL-13 Sat 12/16/2006 Update
FL-13 18,000 Missing Votes, Noon to 1 PM Daily Protest Idea
FL-13 Democrats Giving Up the Local Media War? Not fighting back?
Sarasota Diaries
FL-13: RALLY FOR A REVOTE LIVEBLOG
Move On Petition: Congress must call for a re-vote in Florida
FL-13: Fireworks ahead
Christine Jennings for Congress's diary
Jennings, Voters Describe Voting Machine Failures in Sarasota County
FL-13 Bumper Stickers? Keep The Issue Visible!
Sarasota Election Day Video

•  tipjar

  I want to have no regrets that we could have done more. Don't want to say woulda coulda shoulda.

  The voter suppression issue will never be so clear cut.  The time to act is now.

  by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 09:49:22 AM PDT

•  I've never liked the idea of re-votes before

  But in this case, I don't see how it can be avoided. On the other hand, would Pelosi actually pull the trigger seat Jennings? If she does, we can say bye-bye to working with Congressional Republicans. A re-vote is the best way to settle this.

  by RandyMI on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 09:57:49 AM PDT

  •  Personally, I don't beleive there would be any

    fall-out from not seating the Republican.  The voters will matters here and 18,000 votes are missing.  

    If Republicans want to stand up for denying real voters the right to have their votes counted, have at it.  It's not 2000 and voters have a much different attitude about voting (and Republicans).

    by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:01:19 AM PDT

  •  Pelosi will seat the Republican

    (1) The Publicans have already decided to be completely obstructionist unless we capitulate to them completely. That's the way they operate. Only Democrats get slammed for being 'obstructionist.' With Republicans, it's a virtue. It sucks, but that's the way it is going to be. Until we have a veto- and filibuster- proof majority, we're going to have to make their lives hard by forcing them to vote against overwhelmingly popular legislation. I believe that Reid and Pelosi understand this.

    (2) As much as I appreciate their strengths I have no cofidence in Pelosi or Reid on this sort of issue. They wil bend over to avoid looking 'partisan' in the beltway media right at the start of the session. This sucks ass, but it's absolutely Dem leadership M.O. to wuss out on something they view as a distraction, but that the rank-and-file activists and independent voters view as essential. I believe that Reid and Pelosi don't understand this.

    by lightyearsfromhome on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:11:57 AM PDT

    •  I may be crazy, but I don't see this as a

      partisan issue.

      The issue to me:

      The rights of the 18,000 voters whose votes were not counted.

      by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:24:16 AM PDT

    •  It is not easy to obstructionist in

      the House.  The minority has little opportunity to obstruct anything in the House.

      The Senate, of course, is a different matter.  I don't know how far Sen Repubs will go for an obscure first-term back-bencher in the House.

      by Buckeye Terry on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:03:45 AM PDT

      •  So, nothing lost by doing the right thing, in the

        house!

        by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:07:06 AM PDT

  •  I think Pelosi will allow the House to

    seat Buchanan, and then investigate the election.  I don't think she and the Dem majority want to begin their reign by refusing to seat the certified winner of a race.

    I'm not saying I agree with that-I don't.  I just think that's what's going to happen.

    The problem is that once seated, Buchanan is in for the term.  The only way he could be removed is by a 2/3 vote of the House.  That's not going to happen.

    If the investigation shows massive problems with the election machinery, I suppose there could be massive pressure exerted on Buchanan to resign and have a special election, but I doubt it.  

    Perhaps Pelosi will make a deal with Buchanan and the Repubs.  

    1.  We will seat Buchanan.

    2.  We hold extensive investigations into the election and the operations of the machinery and ballot design.

    3.  If there is a finding of fraud or equipment malfunction, Buchanan is to resign and a special election held.

    The problem with that type of deal is that's it's unenforceable.  Once Buchanan is in-he's in. I suppose if the Repubs don't live up to the bargain, Pelosi and the majority could threatened to make life pretty miserable for him, but what can they really do?  

    by Buckeye Terry on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:00:56 AM PDT

    •  Please, no deal.

      by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:05:44 AM PDT

      •  I don't want that type of deal either

        but knowing how politics and politicians work, I think that's what's going to happen.

        The House won't seat Jennings-I don't even think Jennings is asking for that.  I would be difficult for Pelosi to start her Speakership on such a "partisan" note-would look bad to the media and could be negatively spun in a hundred ways.  So, cut a deal and move on.

        by Buckeye Terry on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:25:09 AM PDT

•  Great bunch of links, heres one more

  to a video:

  http://www.therighttocount.com/...

  by Roger Fox on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:01:43 AM PDT

  •  Thank You, great link, the You Tube link worked

    best for me!

    The YouTube link

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:16:57 AM PDT

•  I voted for

  "Congress will refuse to seat either candidate, and a re-vote will be held" but I'm afraid that's really just wishful thinking on my part.

  Big thanks to you and others who are keeping attention on this!

  by rincewind on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:18:24 AM PDT

•  How's this for a compromise?

  Pelosi agrees to seat Buchanan, but only if the Republican leadership gets behind legislation to mandate a paper trail nationwide. Republicans get the seat, but we get reform, and then we take another shot at the seat in 2008.

  by incertus on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:28:38 AM PDT

  •  Why compromise? The voters votes were not

    counted.

    The issue is clear and understandable.  

    I personally do not care if anyone is in the seat (although I am sure the Democrat won).  In a Democracy only voters get to decide. Kind of important to me.

    by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:35:24 AM PDT

    •  Just trying to be pragmatic here

      I figure if we can get the verifiable voting passed, it's worth the cost of one seat for two years.

      by incertus on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:45:47 AM PDT

      •  I also am being pragmatic. This issue will never

        be so clear. Virtually every American can understand it. I am tired of the nuanced cases, that when you say: "votes were stolen", they call you crazy instead of focusing on the missing votes.

        I believe the Democrats already have the votes to make our voting system better. So (in my mind) no deal, when you get nothing for it, and give up a lot.

        by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:50:58 AM PDT

•  I'm not optimistic

  It sounds like the argument for Jennings is "she would have won if". Even it is true (amd I believe it is), how do you prove voter intent in a court?

  by RandyMI on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:43:21 AM PDT

  •  That's why both lawsuits (her's, and the group

    of non-profits) are asking for a re-vote to fix it.

    by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:45:23 AM PDT

    •  A re-vote appeals to me

      but the problem is that we're revoting on the same machines, we're only doubling the problem, it seems to me.

      by incertus on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:46:39 AM PDT

      •  Revote would undoubtedly be single page, paper

        ballot (the county voters voted to require paper ballots in the next election).

        by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:52:59 AM PDT

•  When the Republicans steal an election,

  It stays stolen! Especially in Florida.

  That doesn't mean that Congressional Democrats shouldn't use this as a cudgel to bludgeon the GOP and the purveyors of these Stalinist devices.

  By 2008, there needs to be comprehensive reform, so for the next 20 or so months Pelosi and Reid need to keep pounding on this issue.

  I think Buchanan is going to be seated, though. I will be surprised if that doesn't happen.

  by CADeminVA on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 10:57:47 AM PDT

  •  I hope he is NOT seated, Democracy demands it.

    If voting reform is to be in place by 2008, the Democrats have only 6 months to enact it.  Local election "supervisors" don't move very quickly. State and Local enabling and purchasing legislation will be needed as well.  

    Time is short and the issue is front and center by using (and keeping alive) FL-13.

    by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:02:30 AM PDT

•  A re-vote isn't legal, would be challenged by GOP

  Unless there is language in the Florida state constitution, ordering a "re-vote" in the event of computer error or fraud (and the language has to be SPECIFIC) there is very little likelihood that there would be a re-vote.  The legal battle of 2000 in the presidential race in Florida should have taught us that.

  BTW, perhaps the Democrats wouldn't want a re-vote to begin with--what if the candidate lost by a wider margin.

  The only way I can see that this plays out is for the Dems to seat the candidate, investigate with the House Administration Committee, then get rid of him if it turns out there is significant error.  Jennings could run again in 2008.

  by MNbluestater on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:00:15 AM PDT

  •  Congress is the ultimate election "decider" for

    it's memembers.  If they declare the seat vacant (refuse to seat either candidate) another election would have to be held.

    by ca democrat on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:04:39 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, federal law applies here

    The US Constitution is quite clear.  Article I, Section 5

    Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    US Constitution at the National Archives

    The House makes the decision, regardless of what the Florida Constitution says or doesn't say.  The House could, and IMHO, should, refuse to seat either candidate and declare the seat vacant.  The size of this undervote in just one county defies logic.

    I have worked with a later generation of the type of machines used in Sarasota County.  (BTW, Ohio requires a paper trail.)  My guess is that there was a problem with the ballot design and the calibration of the touch screen.  

    If voters didn't see the race on the screen, or couldn't register their votes because of calibration problems, a paper trail wouldn't have helped.  The paper trail only records what they voter input into the machine.  

    In this scenario, Jennings should be happy there was no paper trail.  The Repubs would look at the paper ballots, "see, the voter chose not to vote on this race, we won, STFU and seat Buchanan."

    by Buckeye Terry on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:19:28 AM PDT

  •  At least we would know for certain

    BTW, perhaps the Democrats wouldn't want a re-vote to begin with--what if the candidate lost by a wider margin

    .

    If there is a re-vote and the Repub wins, so what?  At least we will know that he won in an honest election.  Right now, we don't know who won that election, and there is no way of knowing who did.

    by Buckeye Terry on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:28:59 AM PDT

  •  Languace like this?

    I was looking over Florida election codes and found this on Page 31:

    100.111 Filling vacancy.—(5) In the event of unforeseeable circumstances
    not contemplated in these general election laws concerning
    the calling and holding of special primary elections
    and special elections resulting from court order or
    other unpredictable circumstances, the Department of
    State shall have the authority to provide for the conduct
    of orderly elections.

    And as to the question of why I'm looking at election codes at 3:30AM...I have no real excuse.  At least I'm also taking the opportunity to rewatch "V for Vendetta."  So in terms of "normal people" things I guess I'm batting .500.

    by JR on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 12:36:03 AM PDT

•  Thanks for continuing to provide

  these updates.  More attention warranted.

  by SarahLee on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 09:39:24 PM PDT