Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
Election Fraud in Florida? Ohio? Chicago? Not this time…How about Maricopa County, Arizona, the fourth most populous county in the United States. Yes, sunny, laid back Arizona seems to be a hotbed of electoral intrigue, dispute and possible malfeasance.
It seems that the results of the September 7, 2004 Republican Primary now has Republicans turning on and challenging fellow Republicans in both the state legislature and in the media. Also emerging are stunning reports that county jail inmates — some of whom have admitted to ballot tampering! — were being used to handle ballots in the county in exchange for early release!
In an article in the Phoenix New Times out today — headlined “Pandora’s Box – Is Arizona’s Speaker of the House afraid of what might happen if the truth is learned about a local election?” — reporter John Dougherty tells a tale of apparent election fraud, a quid pro quo offer, new votes that appear like magic, failure by an assistant county attorney to serve a subpoena, political pressure, and one hell of a mess.
The story covers the strange tale of Maricopa County District 20 Republican Primary state Representative candidate, John McComish who went from four votes behind rival Anton Orlich, after the primary votes were counted, to 13 votes ahead after a recount held on September 21, 2004. In between those two counts 489 new votes mysteriously appeared in the totals.
The incident led to a date in court (that’s what Republicans do when they don’t like the results of elections…too bad more Democrats don’t take the cue) for which the Assistant County Attorney neglected to serve a subpoena on the Election System and Software (ES&S) representative who has an office in the county elections offices. The lack of a witness from the major American Voting Machine company to answer questions about potential machine malfunctions that resulted in the unexplained new votes forced the judge to go ahead and certify results of the election according to the recount. The county Election Director could provide no explanation that made any sense as to where those 489 additional votes came from. Freedom of Information Act requests for records from the County Sheriff — who was supposed to provide guards for the ballots — have been ignored…
Meanwhile a Republican State Senator announced, earlier this year, that a hearing by Arizona’s Senate Government Accountability and Reform Committee would be held to investigate the election, handling of ballots, and other failures by the county and county officials. Then on June 16, state Senator Jack Harper, was called on the carpet by the powerful Speaker of the House, Republican Representative Jim Weiers. Every indication, including witness statements, is that Speaker Weiers offered Senator Harper a job with the state Republican Party if he would drop the investigation. Apparently Senator Harper had an unusual respect for ethics because he declined the offer and is going forward with the hearings. When asked about the job offers, Senator Harper told the Pheonix New Times, “Well, I’ll just say to you that I can’t be bought or intimidated,” Harper said.” And I will leave it at that.”
The New Times also reports that the Democratic candidate for the District 20 seat, Jim Torgeson, was very interested in the race because he felt he had a better chance of beating Orlich in the general election than he did McComish.
Torgeson said he was very interested in the outcome of the recount because he felt he had a far better chance of defeating Orlich in the general election than McComish. Torgeson said Robson told him not to expect Orlich to be his opponent.
“[Robson] said he could virtually guarantee it would be McComish,” Torgeson said.
Robson’s brash prediction puzzled Torgeson.
“I thought it was weird,” Torgeson says, “How did he know that?”
While compiling a report on the details of the District 20 discrepancies between the vote count and the recount, VotersUnite.org has also learned that inmates from the Maricopa County Jail have handled over a million early ballots since 1998! Including tens of thousands during the now-contested 2004 Primary Election!
An article last November in the New Times outlined admissions of ballot tampering by inmates handling early ballots during the 2004 Primary:
The arrangement of inmates handling ballots is “particularly troubling,” according to one source close to the investigation. “Inmates were informed that participation in ballot handling was tied to possible early release,” the source has informed The BRAD BLOG.
According to the source, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was also a candidate during the same Republican Primary Election and had personally endorsed the come-from-behind-after-the-mysterious-recount winner, John McComish, in the District 20 race.
No public documents indicate that inmates handled District 20 ballots between the original count and the recount. However, our source tells us that Maricopa County has yet to provide all of the documents related to its investigation, despite several public information requests.
New Times quotes University of Iowa computer science professor and voting machine expert, Douglas W. Jones:
Is all of this just an issue in District 20 or is it indicative of a more widespread problem in Arizona and elsewhere? And why is the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives so anxious to avoid an investigation in the matter?
The story looks to be far from over as both BRAD BLOG and VotersUnite.org will be continuing our investigation into the matter…
When I go to prison with Rove and Libby, can I tamper with votes too?????????????
weeeeee! get those bastards!
I say they need a new election with tons of oversight.. oh, wait.. smaller gov, less oversight.. less regulations.. silly me..
nevermind, it doesn’t matter who wins, so long as it’s the one that cheats the best..
Great! NE just purchased ES&S voting equipment for the entire state.
"It’s hard to tell whether they are covering up incompetence or fraud," says Jones, who has studied the District 20 situation extensively. "And it’s hard to come up with a hypothesis that doesn’t include, to some degree, one of these things or the other." — Douglas W. Jones
Gee, kinda reminds me of a catchy little tune from my youth:
What these guys need is a new Sesame Street primer as a prerequisite for entering politics.
If they can’t sing about cooperation, and things that are alike or not alike, then they shouldn’t be allowed to hold office as it’s just too complex for thier little thieving minds.
This message was brought to you by the numbers 9 and 8, and the letter "D".
"The election is over, get over it".
We have not had an election. All we have had is the front, the phony, the pablum.
"All we are saying is give [elections] a chance".
I like to think of it as Republican v neoCon
That narrows it down a bit. Now we know it’s not just Republicans cheating, it’s even a smaller group within the Republican party. They might not be Neocons per se, but it’s clear they have the power to ignore other Republicans who are not of their stripe.
That the judge didn’t have the power to extend the case, so the prosecutor could serve the ES&S guys says he was probably in on it too. Doesn’t a judge have a lot of leeway in the scheduling of these things?
From Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, "Who are those guys?"
#2 Savantster- ROFLMAO #4 Greyhawk – sorry but I’m pretty sure they are all Romper Room Rejects that’ll never happen… "This message was brought to you by the numbers 9 and 8, and the letter "D". " I’m Laffin you guys csack me up , thanks I needed that ….
Can we get them all to take the " one pill makes you small " ? I’ll go ask Alice…..
Following up on earlier potential legal issues with Ken Blackwell — Here is the newest story on Black Box Voting (split into two related posts):
Blackwell Blunders on Voting Machine Examinations
Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell claimed in 2003 that his office’s procedures for identifying potential conflicts with voting machine evaluators have "saved us from embarrassment and probably legal entanglements."
Citing conflict of interest by SAIC, the evaluator originally slated to examine Ohio’s voting systems, Blackwell replaced SAIC with CompuWare.
What Blackwell failed to divulge to the public (and perhaps to the vendors as well) was that CompuWare was creating software for a competitor of the companies whose secret software it was evaluating.
CompuWare wrote a blistering report, citing all four major manufacturers for security defects, rating many as “high risk.”
Bev Harris, of Black Box Voting, spoke with CompuWare Director of Media Relations Doug Kuiper today. When asked for his comment on CompuWare’s conflict of interest in writing reports critical of the four major vendors while concurrently developing software for a competitor, Kuiper said “I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m aware that some of our people in Ohio were asked by the Ohio state government to evaluate voting systems.”
Harris: “You wrote reports?”
Kuiper: “Yes.”
Harris: “In 2003, 2004, and 2005. And at the same time, you were helping to develop software for a competing voting machine manufacturer?”
Kuiper: “We’re a billion dollar company.”
Harris: “Is that your response, that you’re a billion dollar company?”
Kuiper: “Is there something on our Web site about working with a competitor?” CompuWare customer Web page
Harris: “Yes, there is. At what point was it disclosed to the state of Ohio that you were developing a competing software?”
Kuiper: “Look, I’ll have to get back to you.”
We have not, so far, heard back from CompuWare.
June, 2003: CompuWare published a press release stating that it was developing elections software for Voting Technology International.
Fall 2003: Blackwell chose CompuWare to evaluate the proprietary software of Diebold, Election Systems & Software, Hart Intercivic and Sequoia Voting Systems.
While CompuWare was being provided with proprietary software for the top four voting machine companies, it was also creating software for a competitor, Voting Technologies International.
According to its Web site, CompuWare continues to assist with software development for Voting Technologies International.
Voting Technologies International recently prevailed over Diebold, ES&S, Hart Intercivic, and Sequoia Voting Systems in selling its voting software in Boone County and Randolph County, Indiana.
According to the company Web site, CompuWare provided development and technical support for VoT Ware, the computerized voting system software sold by Voting Technology International.
“Compuware developers continue to modify the [Voting Technology International] software,“ the CompuWare site reports (Oct 28, 2005).
But what about Blackwell’s fiduciary duty?
Whether CompuWare disclosed its conflict of interest to Blackwell or not, one would think that Blackwell’s “procedures for identifying potential conflicts with voting machine evaluators” would have spotted this whopper of a conflict.
In 2003, Blackwell had slated Scientific Applications International, Inc. (SAIC) to conduct a security review of voting machines for the state of Ohio. Blackwell terminated SAIC in September 2003, citing conflict with SAIC’s investments in Triton Ventures, which shares an interest in Hart Intercivic.
Black Box Voting has learned that CompuWare referred to Voting Technology International as “Electing to Use The Best” in June 2003 on its Web site, and it is still listed in the drop-down menu of customers on the "About Us" page for CompuWare.
Black Box Voting has requested all materials pertaining to the CompuWare contract with Ohio.
We have also requested all correspondence between Blackwell’s office and the four vendors asked to submit proprietary materials to CompuWare, to learn when he disclosed to them that CompuWare was developing a competing product.
Black Box Voting has requested Blackwell’s “office procedures for identifying potential conflicts with voting machine evaluators.”
BBV’s Bev Harris called Blackwell’s office to ask about the CompuWare conflict of interest, and any possible legal entanglements this may cause, in view of the fact that the CompuWare report may have adversely affected the sales of VTI’s competitors.
Blackwell’s office has not yet returned the call.
Did Blackwell fail in an even bigger duty?
While Blackwell’s lack of disclosure (or due diligence) in selecting a voting machine evaluator may have exposed the state of Ohio to potential legal liability, his failure to disclose the contents of the August 18, 2004 CompuWare report may cause even greater legal issues.
Blackwell appears to have delayed distribution of the August 18, 2004 CompuWare report until Jan. 2005. The implications of this will be discussed in an upcoming article.Conflict of interest or not, the Aug. 18 CompuWare report contained very serious concerns about the Diebold voting software, along with specific directives to take three steps to mitigate the risks for the GEMS central tabulator, which it rated "high, high, high."
The exploit category described in the Aug. 18 2004 CompuWare report was proven by Dr. Herbert Thompson using the Diebold GEMS system in Leon County, Florida, on Feb. 14 2005 and again, using a second variation of the hack, on May 2 2005. Now we know that Blackwell had been specifically informed of this vulnerability.
Black Box Voting has submitted public records to determine what Blackwell disclosed, and when, to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and to county election officials using the GEMS system. Our records requests also seek to learn whether the "high risk" mitigations were in fact carried out by Blackwell or anyone else prior to the Nov. 2004 election.
The Diebold GEMS system cited in the Aug. 18 CompuWare report was used in hundreds of jurisdictions and dozens of states in the Nov. 2004 election, including Lucas and Hardin counties in Blackwell’s own state.
If Blackwell failed to implement the CompuWare risk mitigation procedures, and if he failed to disclose the information in the CompuWare report to the rest of the U.S., he may very well have put the entire 2004 election in jeopardy.
Bev #10, #11
Good luck on the document requests. If they do not comply seek court assistance.
The criminals have moved from the street where they have been "pushing wool" and crack into the halls of government. There they are pulling wool … over the public eye.
Gotta stop them. Now.
Keep up the good work. Say hello to Jim.
John Gideon – I know this is late to be posting a huge THANK YOU for this excellent article – please accept my apology if you happen to check back in here.
Thank you for all the great work you have done and continue to do for us all in the arena of Voting activism. I salute you.
I took the fall for other people when I admitted tampering with ballots. I was in jail if you snitch you can wind up dead. Their is alot more to the story if you want to know email me.
I don’t believe we can trust a private corporation to build and possess the opportunities to manipulate voting machine software.
This should be the function of the United States Government, like the Treasury Department.
County governments have demonstrated over the decades that the integrity of their system is full of holes, and constant unresolved complaints of vote tampering.
Vic