In 1677 the British enacted a law called the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries.
The Statute of Frauds and Perjuries was based upon the premise that without paper evidence of the essential terms of a business transaction, the transaction was ripe for fraud and the case became little more than a contest of who was the best perjurer.
The statute of frauds became the law of the colonies, and later, of each and every state, because the courts recognized the value of paper as a deterrent to fraud.
Likewise for most of the USA's history, it was recognized that a paper ballot was the best electoral fraud prevention device known to man.
After all, voting is a transaction between the government and the people.
But in the early twentieth century our legislatures lost sight of the principle of the statute of frauds and began to eradicate paper-based voting systems. That was a huge mistake.
We need to again recognize the principle that paper is the greatest deterrent to fraud ever invented.
We need a national statute of frauds for voting. Not just for some but for all of us.
There's more of course.
The Statute of Frauds throws out of court most business transaction cases which are not based upon a paper record.
Some of you may know that I have filed my own lawsuit here in Tennessee challenging the constitutionality of voting paperless. You can see a diary of mine on the allegations of the lawsuit here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
The case is now on appeal and you can also access a pdf of my appellate brief here:
http://dragonflihost.net/...
After many months of looking at the election process, it has dawned on me that we need to look at the election process in reverse. We need to look at the best means of having an effective and efficient election contest lawsuit first and then work backwards. Imagine an election lawsuit without any paper ballots as proof of who won. It is utterly ridiculous. Follow me.
First let's look at example of a business transaction lawsuit without paper. Suppose you have been defrauded of ten grand. You come to me. I ask if you had a contract. You say no. You also tell me you have no cancelled check because the transaction was cash. You also tell me you have no receipt. You don't even have any written correspondence. You have no witnesses. (Keep in mind for the moment that voting is supposed to be secret and there are no witnesses). Tell me how am I supposed to prove you have been the victim of a business fraud! Now you can see why we have had the statute of frauds for over three hundred years.
Now lets look at two different types of voting election contests -- one with paper and one without.
In the first case thaere are paper ballots. A challenger asks the court to subpoena all of the paper ballots. Once the ballots get to the courthouse, the paper ballots can be marked as evidence (just like a contract, or a cancelled check, or a receipt or a letter of correspondence) and be handed to the jury to count. After the jury's verdict of who got the most votes, the judge declares a winner. The case is fast, cheap, highly effective and final. Plus you have a significant fraud deterrent. Anyone who monkeys with this system has a good chance of being caught.
Contrast that with the case of no paper, like the DRE's everyone is pushing us to vote on, (and like I will be voting on and have voted on). The election contest now becomes a battle of whose software expert is the best. The challenger and his expert will face overwhelming odds. The Challenger's expert will likely have to testify without ever getting to properly examine the equipment. Why? Because the equipment is owned by private manufacturers who assert that their software is proprietary and is a trade secret. Before the challenger can ever get his expert to examine the equipment he has to endure the huge expense of a trade secrets' war.
At best, the second type of lawsuit only convinces the court that there was enough doubt to warrant a new election and so the challenger's best hope is to end up on the same merry-go-round. Does this second kind of case deter fraud? Absolutely not. It encourages fraud. A fraudster knows he is likely never to get caught gaming this system.
My lawsuit is an equal protection lawsuit. It argues that some of the citizens of my state get to vote on a paper-based fraud deterrent system while the rest of us have to vote on a paperless fraud inducing system. It argues that this is patently unfair to those who have to vote on the paperless fraud inducing system. It argues that we should all get to vote on a paper-based system.
When you have no legal redress for fraud, fraud will be rampant when the stakes are high enough. RFK, Jr. and others have always been right to question the 2004 election.
Given that so many people voted on paperless systems around the country, the question should never have been: "Was there any proof of fraud?" Given the spending of $500 million per side, the stakes were extremely high. The question should have always been: "Just how rampant was the fraud?"
Face it. It happened. The stakes were too high and the legal checks and balances were not there to prevent it.
