Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA.Org
Smartmatic paid up to $35M for Sequoia Voting Systems last year, depending on performance. This year they contracted with Cook County and Chicago, Illinois to sell them voting machines worth $50.2M. For that amount of money the state of Illinois could have bought the whole company. A court in Pennsylvania found that at least one county needed to go to the people and ask them, via referendum, how they want to vote. The Arizona legislature rejected a hand audit. Regular readers of DVN will recall that VoteTrustUSA has been sponsoring an Action Alert to ask voters to notify the EAC and demand that they take action with regards to the use of banned software on some voting systems. You all are responsible for 20,113 Emails and 2220 letters sent so far!…
NAtional: Twists and Turns – Who Owns Sequoia? LINK
AZ: Lawmakers reject hand count of votes. (5% hand counted audit) LINK
AZ: SB1557- A Day of Tragedy for Democracy in Arizona LINK
CA: Vendors, Testers, and Secretary of State Decline Invitation To Voting System Hearing LINK
CA: San Francisco Election Director Plans To Use Uncertified Voting Machines LINK
CA: Santa Cruz County – Get set to vote by mail LINK
CO: Vote-machine laws trip counties LINK
FL: Leon County – Sancho wants grant back LINK
IL: Illinois Certification – a Recipe for Disaster? LINK
IL: Are Chicago and Cook County Wasting $25 million on Inferior, Non-Compliant Voting Technology? LINK
MO: Photo ID foe says bill smacks of ‘Jim Crow’ era LINK
MS: Bond would finance new voting machines LINK
MS: Jackson County – State gives voting machines LINK
NC: Wake County – Paper ballots to stay in Wake LINK
NC: Wake County – County commissioners vote against touch-screen voting machines LINK
NM: Paper Ballot Bill Passes State Senate LINK
NM: Senate Approves Paper Ballot Voting Systems LINK
PA: Luzerne County – New voting machines face hurdle LINK
PA: Westmoreland County – Voters must OK machines LINK
PA: Westmoreland County – Voting machine purchase blocked LINK
PA: Westmoreland County – Judge: vote required for purchase of electronic voting machines LINK
TX: Navarro County – County, City closing in on election day agreement LINK
VA: Appropriations Subcommittee Votes to Delay HB 1243 Til Next Year LINK
**”Daily Voting News” is meant as a comprehensive listing of reports each day concerning issues related to election and voting news around the country regardless of quality or political slant. Therefore, items listed in “Daily Voting News” may not reflect the opinions of VotersUnite.Org or BradBlog.Com**
Smartmatic paid up to $35M for Sequoia Voting Systems last year, depending on performance. This year they contracted with Cook County and Chicago, Illinois to sell them voting machines worth $50.2M. For that amount of money the state of Illinois could have bought the whole company. A court in Pennsylvania found that at least one county needed to go to the people and ask them, via referendum, how they want to vote. The Arizona legislature rejected a hand audit. Regular readers of DVN will recall that VoteTrustUSA has been sponsoring an Action Alert to ask voters to notify the EAC and demand that they take action with regards to the use of banned software on some voting systems. You all are responsible for 20,113 Emails and 2220 letters sent so far!…
Full on TRO in Arizona and Pennsylvania….
Take them all the way to the edge of COURT and back, and delay HAVA immediately. Be like Paul Lehto and make indeed, the argument that "none of these machines, in fact, which are touch screen or any machine which has secret source code ought to be used to count votes."
The entire argument violates the constitution. That’s how Paul Lehto won.
Thats how you will get your required 5% audit, and how a state such as UTAH will enforce the law for this.
Doug E.
"Full text of Paul Lehto’s unitary lawsuit: According to the constitution, the record explicitly states that the vote SHALL NOT be counted in secret where no one can see."
Underlined.
Doug
Doug E #2
Where "According to the constitution" does it state that "the vote SHALL NOT be counted in secret where no one can see"?
It is quite easy to search the text of the constitution for what the text really says.
The word "vote" appears in the 12th (electors, not the people, vote for pres and vpres; only congress present, not the public; modern TV can make it open), 14th (2/3 vote of congress can pardon eligibility effects of rebellion, etc), 15th (all races can vote), 17th (people’s right to vote for senate established), 19th (women can vote), 24th (eradicate poll tax), and 26th (18 yrs old can vote) Amendments.
It also appears in Article II (how electors, not the people, vote for pres & vpres – modified by 12th amendment).
Originally there was no right of the people to vote for senators or for the president.
Voting in such cases was done by vicars, ie "electors", people who purportedly represented the people and voted for president in their stead. These electors are state legislators who have been elected by state law to state legislatures.
Election functionality is largely a matter of local (state) procedure, unfortunately.
That is why different voting machines from different voting machine companies can be working at the same time in one state, or all states.
"That is why different voting machines from different voting machine companies can be working at the same time in one state, or all states."
You miss the point. Read Lehto’s entire argument in the court cases cited; and you’ll see where it says in the state constitution’s clause that voting in secret violates the fourth ammendment. He has made it crystal clear: Secret vote counting violates the rules of the constitution.
Its been spelled out in plain language, not the electors but in fact the vote itself.
Doug E.
Update:
Full text of Lynn Landes lawsuit filed in the supreme court, jurisdictional oversight department
Doug E.
Doug E #4
Here is the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " (link here).
It is your responsibility to correct the falsehood, not mine.
I merely put light on it and you should react to light favorably, not unfavorably.
Your proposition and reply are looney tune.