50 days.
50 days since the election.
1. Conyers, you coy little man.
Is it time to crack out the F-word..."flip-flopper" (or is that two words?)? First, Conyers appears on Countdown and says that he is "prepared" to contest the election. Then, we find out via Olbermann's blog that after the interview, he pulled back a bit and says he hasn't decided. Then we hear him saying on the Ed Shultz show yesterday (again) that a senator (or "a number of them" as he said) will "absolutely" contest the election. And then, in the sick game that is political foreplay, we get a Salon article yesterday saying that Conyers hasn't contacted any senators, that he doesn't know what will happen.
So what's going on?
Well, I cannot imagine Conyers casting his vote and not saying something to the effect that this was a fucked up election (he would be far more eloquent than I, of course). There will be an objection from the House, absolutely. Out of 435 of them, someone's going to want the spotlight...er, I mean...stand up and defend democracy.
But the Senate? Will any of them came down from their lofty perches and enter the mudpit? I think Conyers was taunting the Senate in the Shultz interview. A kind of "come on, Senators, show us what you got." And I have a feeling there will be a Senator this time. Remember, in 2000, none of the Senators contested the election because Gore specifically asked them not to (what a STUPID idea that was, by the way). Kerry better not have sent out a similar call to inaction this time. Gore did it because he didn't want to "divide the country" and here we are - four years later, more divided than ever.
Practically speaking, I cannot picture on January 6th, with massive protests raging outside the capitol, that all of Congress will cast their votes without a peep of recognition to what has transpired over the past 50 days.
2. Speaking of January 6th...
That's when Congress opens up the Hallmark envelopes with the list of electors. Curious as to what they look like? Here is Ohio's transmission of electors. Pretty. Depressing, but very pretty.
3. Paper Trail This!
Diebold, the same company that issues receipts at ATMs and grocery stores throughout the county, had the genius idea of not incorporating a paper trail into its voting machines. But states are smarter than that, and they have been struggling with how to go about retrofitting the machines with printers (cost ranges from $500-$1,500 per machine.)
Let's take Maryland, for instance. Such a tiny state, let's give it some attention.
If I were a gigantic, partisan company making millions off of supplying unverifiable voting machines to the states, what would I do? Well, I'd price gouge them. It's the American thing to do!
An e-mail found in a collection of files stolen from Diebold Elections Systems' internal database recommends
charging Maryland "out the yin-yang," if the state requires Diebold to add paper printouts to the $73 million voting system it purchased.
The e-mail from "Ken," dated Jan. 3, 2003, discusses a (Baltimore) Sun article about a University of Maryland study of the Diebold system:
"There is an important point that seems to be missed by all these articles: they already bought the system. At this point they are just closing the barn door. Let's just hope that as a company we are smart enough to charge out the yin if they try to change the rules now and legislate voter receipts."
"Ken" later clarifies that he meant "out the yin-yang," adding, "any after-sale changes should be prohibitively expensive."
Yeah, Ken. That's what you meant. And what's up with the barn door metaphors in this update? Sheesh.
More from the article:
The e-mail has been cited by advocates of voter-verified receipts, who say estimates of the cost of adding printers -- as much as $20 million statewide -- have been bloated.
"I find it appalling," said Del. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Dist. 14) of Brookeville, who plans to file a bill mandating a voter-verified paper trail.
"I'd really like to have [yin-yang] explained to me anatomically, with the assumption that almost any place it would be would be painful," she said.
Montgomery said that the price to add printers should be much lower and that she thinks it is being high-balled in part to keep people from talking about the printing system.
Diebold spokesman David Bear would neither dispute nor confirm the accuracy of the "yin-yang" e-mail on Monday, saying it is "at best the internal discussion of one individual and does not reflect the sentiments or the position of the company."
You gotta smile at that one, no?
4. Of Cheat Sheets and "embittered idealists".
Rick Pearlstein has an article in the Village Voice today that I think is both on the mark and off the mark. Here is an excerpt (from a rather long article, so don't worry, Copyright Gods):
But the charges producing the greatest heat online often turn out to have the most innocent explanations. The recount isn't amounting to much, either. Last week the Franklin County Board of Elections did discover one extra vote for Kerry--offset by the extra vote they found for Bush. The irregularities volunteers have pointed to in the recount process itself are often picayune.
In many Americans' minds, it's not too hard to imagine, this will all be received as further evidence of the activist left's irrelevance. Which would, in fact, be a tragedy. For elections in America are indeed broken, badly, and vulnerable to fraud. That fact is not politically neutral: The problems in America's election system have advantaged the Republicans, in significant and consistent ways.
If the Democrats had a Karl Rove--a cunning master strategist who thinks so far in advance that he wins new wars before the other side even wakes up to discover there's been a fight--setting up an election reform movement might be the first thing he would do. It just wouldn't look anything like the reform movement we have--so uncoordinated, strategically unsound, and prone to going off half-cocked that it may end up hurting the crucial cause it seeks to help.
[...]
This clash of cultures, between bright-eyed defenders of democracy (an ingathering one of the Greene County volunteers breathlessly calls "divinely guided") and harried county clerks can make for epic misunderstandings. An entire county is only recounted if a preliminary sample of 3 percent shows anomalies. In little Hocking County, a visiting computer repairman from Triad Government Systems suggested dodging that tedious eventuality by hiding the original totals on a bulletin board. Word of the repairman's suggestion leaked out.
Online forums exploded with conspiracy theories, though everyone actually present at the time insists the guy was joking. It wasn't funny to Representative Conyers, who called it "likely illegal election tampering" and demanded an FBI investigation.
That kind of overreaching may lead to embarrassments. Cliff Arnebeck is an Ohio-based lawyer convinced that it was John Kerry who won 51 percent there--only to be robbed, he says, by "a movement of some 65,000 votes or so that were cast for Kerry into the Bush column." ... It's a fix," says Arnebeck--after all, he reasons, who could have intended a vote for both George Bush and a liberal black woman?
You wonder if Arnebeck did his due diligence before making the claim. "Connally and I have talked about it. It's such a stretch," says Dan Trevas, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party. He reeled off three reasons southwestern Ohio turned against Connally's opponent, Thomas J. Moyer--most prominently the way the area had been ravaged by one of Moyer's most prominent decisions, on school-funding formulas.
Arnebeck's response? "He's blowing smoke. Those three things are bullshit." He blames the Democrats' culture of timidity for their inability to get behind his suit."If you get screwed this way, this is the last thing you want to admit: that you've let them get away with this stuff."
Now, here is where I completely disagree with the author:
As a strategy for election reform, a recount can only work if it produces a convincing record of abuse.
[...]
Standing behind Jackson's constitutional amendment would be a better application of progressive energies than the frenzied attempt every fourth December to chase down the horses after the barn door is closed. ... We've got 22 more months to try to do that ourselves. It's December of 2004. Do you know who your congressional candidate for '06 is?
While this article does give some perspective to the situation (was the Triad rep just "joking" about the cheat sheet?), I absolutely disagree that the only way to use Ohio as a platform for election reform is to produce a "convincing record of abuse."
Ohio has already demonstrated that our election system is critically flawed: there are no standard procedures for counting ballots, voters have been denied their right to vote because of arbitrary technicalities (why wasn't your ballot on 80 lb. paper???), and Jesus, if this Ohio experience has taught us anything at all about election reform, it is that a Campaign official should NEVER be in charge of the elections. He wields too much power, casts too much a shadow over the process.
I am sure that much of this Ohio "Frenzy" as the author puts it would have been avoided had we been dealing with a neutral official. Instead, we have a blatantly partisan hack, so naturally, any roadblock he sets up will be viewed in light of that context.
So no, we don't have to prove "a convincing record of abuse" to reform our election. No, we aren't "wasting our time". No, we shouldn't be looking forward just yet until we FIX THESE DAMN MACHINES! Election after election without a paper trail, with the status quo of privatizing our public rights, the suspicion and inaccuracy will just snowball until we may as well start attending the GOP convention and just casting our votes there.
We have 22 months until the next election. It's December 2004. Do you know where your paper trial is?
4. Must Reads
Let's Prevent Stolen Elections, a short response article published this week which encapsulates the gist of why Ohio Counts.
Check out the WISH-TV site, from Indianapolis. THAT, my friends, is how the media reports on the Election. And it's a local station, by the way. Take that, Faux, MSGop...
Something's Rotten in Ohio...read this article on how the Southwestern results just don't add up.
Read about Conyer's request for the exit poll data yesterday. What did the networks say? "Um, you can't have it...we're still working on it...yeah, that's it...we're fixi--I mean, "evaluating" the data."
5. Must Do's
Head on over to www.wheresthepaper.org. There is this awesome little virtual voting booth where you vote a few times (Voter #1, Voter #2, as many times as you want). Click "Close voting booth" and it shows you your tally. You may be surprised what this exercise in electronic voting proves...
Check out Voters Unite. It's a great site and from that page, you can donate to the Ohio recount, email the Judiciary Committee, and Support the GAO Inquiry Request.
Enjoy your day. At least I will...I have my last final today! :D
Update [2004-12-22 14:17:55 by georgia10]:: The Ohio Supreme Court, as so many quick posters noted below :), has decided let the Arnebeck/Fritakis team argue Moss v. Bush.
2004-2088. Moss v. Bush.
On Petition to Contest Election. This cause originated in this court on the filing of
a petition to contest an election under R.C. 3515.08. Upon consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice of Peter Peckarsky by Clifford O. Arnebeck and the motion for admission pro hac vice of Lillian M. Ritt, Charles Travis, Judy McCann, Cynthia Butler and Bonnie McFadden by Robert J. Fitrakis,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions be, and hereby are, granted.
Moyer, C.J., in Chambers.
First, the latin stuff. "Pro hac vice"? What that means is that they were not not licensed to practice law in Ohio, but "for this time only", he has permission to argue a case in Ohio court.
Next, check out Mortiz . Basically, like in a normal civil case, the next step is discovery, which is the process by which both sides can collect information about their case.
However, because this is an election contest with time constraints, there are some key differences:
The statutory provisions for an election contest reflect a tension between mirroring the process of typical civil litigation, yet empowering the court to take control of the proceeding. For example, R.C. 3515.11 states that the contest “shall be similar to those in judicial proceedings, in so far as practicable,” however the contest “shall be under the control and direction of the court.”
Consequently, a contest court clearly has the power to control the evidence before it by summoning and compelling witnesses, compelling the production of ballots, ballot boxes, tally sheets, and other records. R.C. 3515.12. This includes the power to compel any witness who voted at the election to answer questions on his qualifications as a voter and for whom he voted. R.C. 3515.12.
The right to discovery is bolstered in an election contest that originates in the supreme court for several reasons. First, there is a separate statutory provision that requires all testimony in the supreme court to be by deposition. R.C. 3515.16. The short time limit provided—the contestor has twenty days to take and file the deposition testimony after filing the petition followed by 20 days for the contestee—further implies a brisk period of discovery. See R.C. 3515.16.
It is unclear whether, during the discovery process, Arnebeck can compel disclosure of the exit poll data. The argument set forth by the networks today was protesting disclosure of the information because it's still being "evaluated".
I think this discovery process will show us just how unwise it is to have our election information in the hands of the major media and a private company which can declare a proprietary interest in the information.
Needless to say, acceptance of the lawsuit is a good sign. You can expect now an uphill battle, even more so than before, with the best attorneys fighting to get this case thrown out during discovery or severly limiting discovery to undermine Arnebeck's case.
Update [2004-12-22 15:13:41 by georgia10]:: I like to call it "Blackwellitis", how about you?
Chief Justice Moyer denied a motion for emergency expedited hearing and relief to prevent spoilation of evidence:
2004-2088. Moss v. Bush.
On Petition to Contest Election. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a petition to contest an election under R.C. 3515.08. Upon review of contestors’ motion for emergency expedited hearing and emergency expedited relief to prevent spoliation of evidence and to preserve documentary and lectronic evidence, and in view of R.C. 3599.34, which precludes the destruction of certain election records until the time has expired for using them as evidence in a contest of election, I conclude that the interests of justice do not warrant consideration of contestors’ motion prior to expiration of time for contestees to appear in opposition. S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(4)(C).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that consideration of contestors’ motion be, and hereby is, deferred until the expiration of time set by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(4)(B) for the filing ofa memorandum in opposition, or until such a memorandum is filed, whichever occurs first.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that other motions which have been, or may be, filed will be considered pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority granted me by R.C. 3515.11, that contestors shall file on or before December 28, 2004, a written memorandum of law addressing the following two questions:
(1) Whether this election contest is moot based on the fact that it was filed subsequent to the “safe harbor” date established by 3 U.S.C. §§ 5
and 7? This date was December 7, 2004 for the November 2, 2004 presidential election.
(2) January 6, 2005 is the date established by 3 U.S.C. §15 forCongress to review the votes of the electors and formally declare the winner of the presidential election. What would be the legal
12-22-04 2 significance of the passage of that date relative to the contestors’ petition?
The contestees may file a written memorandum in response, addressing the same two questions, on or before January 3, 2005. Each memorandum shall be
limited to 25 pages in length and shall otherwise comply with all applicable requirements of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., in Chambers.
Bush v. Gore rears its ugly head. More analysis in a bit...
Until the next update...
