4 Responses

1. 

   1)

   freddie_z said on 4/24/2006 @ 2:57pm PT: [Permalink]

   golly, john, 4 working days to test the microvote system? betcha that was one rigorous set of tests, huh? who says you can’t rush quality?

2. 

   2)

   Dredd said on 4/25/2006 @ 2:23am PT: [Permalink]

   Sixth Circuit Holds Blackwell and Ohio Liable

   FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION

   Blackwell of Ohio violated the rights of Ohio citizens. That is what a lawsuit brought by some Ohio voters in 2002 claimed. The federal district court at Akron, disagreed and denied their claims.

   The Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the case. It held that the equal protection rights of the voters, given expression in the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, had been violated.

   It sent the case back for futher proceedings. It also held that the case should be handled as a class action lawsuit, which will allow thousands more to be given relief. It will also cost Ken Blackwell’s office more money (Stewart v Blackwell).

   The court held:

   "The district court’s decision with regard to the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. With regard to the plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act claim, the district court’s decision is VACATED, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion" (id. pp. 31-32, bold added).

   This case may open the door to advance the law such that it is illegal to have defective electronic voting machines. The court stated:

   "Violations of the Equal Protection Clause are no less deserving of protection because they are accomplished with a modern machine than with outdated prejudices" (id., bold added).

3. 

   3)

   Dredd said on 4/25/2006 @ 3:50am PT: [Permalink]

   North Carolina District 1 winds its way thru Northampton, Warren, Vance, Granville, Halifax, Hertford, Gates, Bertie, Edgecombe, Martin, Washington, Pitt, Greene, Craven, Beufort, Jones, Lenoir, Wilson, Wayne, Carteret, Pasquotank, Perquimans, and Chowan counties.

   California District 1 winds its way thru Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Sonora, and Napa counties; while California District 2 winds its way thru Siskiyou, Trinity, Shasta, Tahama, Glenn, Butte, Yuba, Colusa, Sutter, and Yolo counties.

   Texas District 25 winds its way thru Hidalgo, Starr, Jim Hogg, Duval, Live Oak, Karnes, Gonzales, Caldwell, and Travis counties. Texas District 28 is similar.

   Utah District 1 winds its way thru Juab, Tooele, Box Elder, Cache, Rich, Summit, Morgan, Davis, Webber, and Salt Lake counties.

   Alabama District 7 winds its way thru Tuscaloosa, Pickens, St. Clair, Greene, Hale, Perry, Sumter, Chocktaw, Marengo, Dallas, Wilcox, and Clarke counties.

   New York District 23 winds its way thru Clinton, Franklin, Essex, Hamilton, Fulton, Saint Lawrence, Jefferson, Lewis, Oswego, Oneida, and Madison counties.

   Indiana District 9 winds its way thru Monroe, Brown, Bartholomew, Jackson, Jennings, Ripley, Dearborn, Ohio, Switzerland, Jefferson, Scott, Clark, Floyd, Harrison, Perry, Crawford, Washington, Orange, Dubois, and Spencer counties.

   Up to ten, twenty, or more counties can be touched in just one congressional district. It’s a gerrymander thang (link here).

   The Stewart v Blackwell court (cited in my post #2 above) declared unconstitutional the use of different voting technology in different Ohio counties, because in some counties voters had less chance of having their votes counted.

   At issue were punch-card or optical scanning systems that do not give voters a chance to find mistakes they made on their ballot, and correct them before casting their vote.

   As a result of that technology, perhaps 55,000 presidential votes were lost in 2000, the Circuit Court found, citing what it called a conservative estimate.

   That, the Federal 6th Circuit Court Court of Appeals said in Stewart v Blackwell, a 2-1 ruling, violated the equal protection rights of voters in the disfavored counties.

   It seems to me that there is a nexus here that applies in scenarios where different counties use different electronic voting machines with varying degrees of "accuracy" and therefore do not apply the right of voters to be treated equally.

   Voters are treated unequally when counties use different machines with different degrees or error.

   Thus, I think a case should be brought alleging those issues and I am preparing one.

   However, before I file, I am waiting to see if the case is taken up en banc, that is, a hearing before all the judges of the 6th Circuit.

4. 

   4)

   Brant Lamb said on 4/25/2006 @ 5:04am PT: [Permalink]

   Too cool, Dredd!