Uh-oh here we go again ... an Ohio repeat of 2004 ... maybe?
As Ohio Faces Vote-Rigging Lawsuit, Are Dems, Liberals, Election Officials Ready to Safeguard Votes?
by Art Levine, HuffPo Contributing Editor, The Washington Monthly -- Nov 02, 2012
[...]
The Ohio-based Free Press editor-in-chief Robert Fitrakis, also a Green Party candidate for Congress, announced plans to file a lawsuit later today seeking an immediate injunction against Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted and the ES&S manufacturer to halt the use of secretly installed, unauthorized "experimental" software in 39 counties' tabulators in an alleged violation of state election law. His attorney, Cliff Arnebeck, has also referred the case to the Cincinnati FBI for a criminal investigation. Arnebeck says, "It's a flagrant violation of the law. Before you add new software, you need approval of a state board. They are installing an uncertified, suspect software patch that interfaces between the a county's vote tabulation equipment and state tabulators."
Here's more of the "nuts and bolts" of this Voting Machine "upgrade," from Election-watcher Robert Fitrakis himself:
Will "experimental" software patches affect the Ohio vote?
by Bob Fitrakis and Gerry Bello, freepress.org -- October 31, 2012
[...]
During the 2004 presidential election, the Free Press reported that election officials observed technicians from the ES&S voting machine company and Triad computer maintenance company installing uncertified and untested software patches on voting machines in 44 Ohio counties prior to the election. Software patches are usually installed to "update" or change existing software. These software patch updates were considered suspect by election protection activists, in light of all the voting machine anomalies found during the 2004 election in Ohio.
The Free Press has learned that Election Systems and Solutions (ES&S) installed the software patches that will affect 4,041,056 registered voters, including those in metropolitan Columbus and Cleveland.
[...]
A call to the Ohio Secretary of State's office concerning the software patches was not returned by publication deadline. Previously, the Free Press requests for public records, including voting machine vendor contracts, have been stonewalled by Office Secretary of State John Husted's office through his public records officer Chris Shea.
[...]
Last minute software patches may be deemed "experimental" because that designation does not require certification and testing. Uncertified and untested software for electronic voting systems are presumably illegal under Ohio law. All election systems hardware and software must be tested and certified by the state before being put into use, according to Ohio Revised Code 3506.05. By unilaterally deeming this new software "experimental," Secretary of State Husted was able to have the software installed without any review, inspection or certification by anyone. ES & S, for their part, knows that this software will not be subject to the minimal legally required testing as stated in the contract on page 21 (Section 6.1).
[...]
What can be done about this?
Art Levine, Huffington Post Contributing Editor, offers from possible "oversight" suggestions ...
[continuing from HuffPost ...]
County board of elections are now free to use these more advanced techniques if they make a request before Election Day to the Ohio Secretary of State, who has authorized their use. Such sophisticated but easy to implement methods could mean that they could serve as a double-check on Husted's latest gambit: he has okayed the use of unauthorized, experimental software "patches" that critics suspect might rig elections, as The Free Press reported this week. But, the easy-to-use "ballot polling" technique to randomly sample paper ballots and records could spot even potential small-scale "red shifting" fraud. Of course, that won't happen unless election boards or the Secretary of State's office face outside pressure across the political spectrum to implement the higher quality, risk-limiting audits that Husted has initially okayed. Even some Republicans might want an outcome that the public can trust, given the controversies over voting machines in Ohio.
I remember those "red-shift" ... the bell-curves of the exit polls showing the Dems winning in most counties, somehow mysteriously shifted to the GOP into the win columns, by about 5% when the actual {patched} voting was actually counted.
Statisticians investigating this later testified, that the chances of such a "red-shift" across so many related areas, happening merely by chance -- were astronomical. One in a Trillion.
Standard Deviations usually aren't that flexible; they're called "Standard" for a reason.
So with trepidation, I pose the warning, I hope it's not "here we go again" ...
Where are the Poll-Watchers for this last-minute Software Patch to Ohio Voting Machines?
Who authorized it?
Why was it needed? (Only in certain Counties?)
Who has reviewed it?
Who has certified it?
Why has it been deemed "experimentally" necessary -- at the very last minute?
Who made this unusual designation -- that provides an end-around from the normal review process?
Probably all questions, we'll never get the answers to ...
Hopefully with an overwhelming turn-out, we won't need them.
GOTV Ohio!
----- ---- ---- ----
(PS. I first heard about this a half hour ago, Chris Jansen reporting it, and then Joy-Ann Reid, on the Ed Show;
I hesitated bringing it up, because I'm not one to chase CT's. But in this case better safe than sorry, I thought. My apologies if this turns out a false alarm.
But, in my experience, Bob Fitrakis is usually a pretty trustworthy fact-based source.)