The judge recognizes the obvious.

An EVM can change more votes in a nano-second than all errant voters (like Ann Coulter) put together who feebly attempt to commit voter fraud.

The Karl Rove engendered voter fraud canard is like having the pee-wee league compete with the major league ... or as they say in the bible belt "straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel".

Don't sweat the small stuff ... lets concentrate on corrupt electronic voting machines ... they are voter fraud on STERIODS!

DUH!

You should keep pounding home, though, the difference between "voter fraud" and "e-vote fraud". One is people misrepresenting their ID, and one is machines being manipulated.

I think they "casual" reader might think you're saying that there's "no e-vote fraud", when you're saying there's "no VOTER fraud".

This case does underscore the "less than thin" evidence some prosecutors have had when the case is filed. The judge said:

In this case, the Government seems to have developed its interpretation of Missouri’s obligations under the NVRA either in preparation for litigation or during the course of litigation. Furthermore, notwithstanding inevitable state-to-state variations, the Government has not shown that its position with respect to Missouri’s obligations is consistent with its position as to any other state’s obligations. As such, the Government’s position will be afforded only as much deference as justified by the persuasive power of its argument. See Landmark Legal Foundation v. I.R.S., 267 F.3d 1132, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (holding that I.R.S.’s interpretation of statute, which it developed in litigation, merited no more than the weight derived from its power to persuade).

(DOJ v SOS, page 17, emphasis added). Which means that they were not using a theory of law developed with wide spread consensus, agency hearings, and public input.

Those out-in-the-open types of legal theories are given considerable weight by courts, but when the government makes up their legal theory of the case just before or during litigation the courts give no deference.

This generally means it is a weak case in the eyes of the court, and that is why the neoCons working at Rove's behest lost this one too.

The voter fraud canard mandated to US Attorneys by Karl Rove on pain of getting fired continues while the big story of electronic voting machine fraud of the Feeney type continues virtually unreported in the MSM.

Brad seized upon the issue asking in effect "What did US Attorneys, who were not fired, do to keep their jobs?" I had noted some suspicion about that too.

Brad, thanks for giving us such a great story this evening! We were due for some more good news here in Missouri.

After voting in St. Louis County in April using those now infamous ES&S iVotronics, it is heartening to hear that the balance of power still has a little weight on the side of justice.

Pat Berg

Pat - Please contact SoS Carnahan and make sure she knows about today's ES&S iVotronics story! I promise you the EAC isn't gonna do it! Here's your help:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4416