|
May 09, 2008 Providing legal resources and election news to California election officials and the attorneys who represent them. |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 » March 29, 2006 Florida subpoenas voting machine companiesFrom Reuters: "Florida's attorney general on Wednesday subpoenaed three companies after they refused to sell machines to a Florida county whose elections supervisor has become a leading critic of electronic voting. Attorney General Charlie Crist said his office had issued subpoenas to seek sales documents from Diebold Election Systems Inc. of Diebold Inc. (DBD.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Election Systems & Software Inc., or ES&S, and Smartmatic's Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. The investigation will look at how the companies marketed voting machines to Florida counties and why all three companies declined to sell voting equipment for disabled voters to Leon County, possibly flouting anti-trust laws and the civil rights of voters there, Crist's office said. "It is critical for our democratic process to work efficiently and effectively, but of most importance, fairly," Crist said in a statement. "These subpoenas are to ensure that the rights of our voters with disabilities as well as all Florida voters are secured." Posted by Randy Riddle at 03:39 PM | Permalink. . . New California ID System May Block VotersFrom the LA Times: "Thousands of Californians who register to vote or update their records may not receive sample ballots or be able to vote as absentees because of the state's new method of verifying identities, election officials say. A new statewide database designed by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to authenticate voter registrations has blocked otherwise valid registrations because of computer glitches, slight discrepancies in spelling or incomplete applications. The problems have required registrars to contact voters — a time-consuming process that is already taxing some counties facing elections next month. San Diego County is racing to rectify rejected registrations in time for the April 11 special election to fill the seat vacated by convicted Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. "We're working overtime to get these voters cleared," said Tim McNamara, assistant registrar of voters in that county. In Los Angeles County, the database rejected 14,629 people — 43% of those who registered from Jan. 1 to March 15. Officials are trying to resolve the problems in time for municipal elections April 11 in 14 cities in the county. They say the challenge will be far larger for the June 6 primary, which will involve many more voters. In any election, voters whose registrations are in dispute have to cast provisional ballots, which are not counted until authorities determine that the voter is legitimate. How the new system "is bogging down the process is now extremely significant and will become catastrophic as we approach the major election in June," said Conny McCormack, Los Angeles County registrar. McCormack said that in busy election seasons, her office receives more than 20,000 registration forms a day. Two-thirds of those come from registered voters changing their names, party affiliations or addresses. The deadline for registering to vote in the June 6 primary is May 22. The new database system was installed to meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act, the 2002 federal law designed to avoid the voting irregularities cited in the 2000 presidential race. Since the start of this year, voters in all states have been required to provide their driver's license number, other state-approved identification or the last four digits of their Social Security number when they register to vote or change their information. Voter information is checked against records with the federal government and state motor vehicles department. Under an agreement negotiated by McPherson and the U.S. Justice Department, California is one of nine states that use the standard of an "exact match," in which the records must be the same to the letter, according to a national survey by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit group in New York City. Thus, "Robert Smith" and "Rob Smith" would not be considered a match. Ashley Snee Giovannettone, spokeswoman for McPherson, who oversees elections, said a sampling of statewide registrations found that 74% were immediately verified. She said state election law requires county officials to resolve the discrepancies for the others, which might mean fixing a typo or contacting the voter to obtain missing information." Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:37 AM | Permalink. . . Monterey County: Rancho San Juan referendum voted off June ballot"Monterey County supervisors, despite a barrage of personal barbs, decided Tuesday to remove Measure C, a ballot measure regarding the controversial Rancho San Juan development, from the county's June ballot. The 4-1 vote, with Supervisor Dave Potter dissenting, sets up a new round of lawsuits over a blossoming conflict between county land-use policies and compliance with Spanish-language requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act. Besides the supervisors' vote to pull the Measure C referendum off the ballot, there were other developments Tuesday on the litigation front: • Two county Latinos filed a federal lawsuit challenging Measure C because supporters of the ballot measure didn't circulate referendum petitions in both English and Spanish. Their suit mirrors almost exactly a case decided last week by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware, who ruled the controversial General Plan Initiative, which qualified for the ballot after another petition drive, violated minority language requirements of the Voting Rights Act. • Supporters of the General Plan Initiative filed an appeal of Ware's decision with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They contend they followed the letter of California election law and were never advised by county officials that materials should be circulated in English and Spanish. • Immediately after the supervisors's vote, backers of Measure C, which aimed to overturn county approval of Butterfly Village, a 671-acre golf-residential subdivision just north of Salinas, vowed to file suit seeking to restore the measure on the ballot. "It's in the the works right now," said Julie Engell, chairwoman of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition. "Our position is the (supervisors' decision) is an illegal act." It's likely the dust won't quickly settle, though backers of Measure C and the General Plan Initiative cling to hopes of getting both measures on the June ballot. The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:35 AM | Permalink. . . Judge upholds Correa's right to remain in Senate primary"A Sacramento County Superior Court judge Tuesday upheld Orange County Supervisor Lou Correa's right to be on the June ballot, dashing Assemblyman Tom Umberg's hopes of eliminating his opponent in the Democratic primary for the 34th Senate District. Umberg had alleged that the supervisor violated elections law by submitting more than the maximum number of signatures allowed to qualify for the June 6 ballot. Correa needed signatures from 40 registered voters. After submitting his first batch on March 10, he was told he didn't have enough signatures, so he submitted more. When that still didn't bring him up to 40, he submitted a third group, exceeding 60 total signatures. Representatives for Correa, the Orange County Registrar of Voters and Secretary of State Bruce McPherson argued Tuesday that the limits apply to the number of signatures submitted in each batch, not to the total submitted. Umberg's attorney, Stephen Kaufman, characterized Correa's campaign as wantonly flouting a firm, 60-signature limit. He described Correa as "cavalier" about the election process, saying the supervisor "waited until the last minute to submit" signatures. "Your Honor, what we have here is an example of a candidate's complete disregard for the nomination process," Kaufman said. Judge Patrick Marlette acknowledged Umberg's side raised some valid points about vague elections law, but said ultimately that was not enough to block Correa from being on the ballot. You can read the story here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:32 AM | Permalink. . . March 28, 2006 Judge rules Loma Linda petition invalid"For the second time in less than a week, a judge has stymied a conservation group seeking to stop two housing and commercial developments and preserve open space in the city. A federal judge ruled Friday that a petition for a proposed ballot initiative to protect land in the South Hills was invalid because it was not translated into Spanish. The decision came a day after a San Bernardino Superior Court judge ruled that referendums on two housing and retail projects totaling about 300 acres were flawed because they violated the state Elections Code. The referendums were scheduled to appear on the June 6 ballot in which voters also will elect three council members. In the federal ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Audrey Collins issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the hillside initiative from being considered by voters. Collins' decision also applies to the two referendum petitions that were thrown out in San Bernardino Superior Court. Save Loma Linda, the conservation group that was trying to qualify the initiative for the August or November ballot, violated the requirements of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act, Collins said in her ruling. The law requires counties to provide election materials in other languages if more than 5 percent of the voting-age population of a particular minority group in that area does not speak or read English well. The U.S. Census director has determined that San Bernardino County meets the threshold for requiring election materials be provided in Spanish and English. You can read the story here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:58 AM | Permalink. . . Backers vow suit over Measure C"Foes of a golf subdivision in Rancho San Juan outside Salinas said Monday they will seek court protection of a June ballot measure against the project if Monterey County supervisors today block the pending referendum election. "We'll take it up, if they do what what we think they are going to do," said Julie Engell, chairwoman of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition. If that occurs, the suit would be another strand in an already complex web of litigation pitting always-controversial county land-use decisions against minority voting rights. Also Monday, backers of the contentious General Plan Initiative appealed a federal judge's decision last week to knock the measure from the June ballot. County Counsel Charles McKee said the latest threat of litigation over the Rancho San Juan referendum is no surprise. "I expect a lawsuit on both sides," he said. Because a federal judge last week ruled that proponents of the slow-growth General Plan Initiative violated federal law by circulating petitions only in English, county attorneys are recommending that supervisors revisit their placement of Measure C on the June ballot." You can read the article here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:57 AM | Permalink. . . March 27, 2006 Bay Meadows Co. files lawsuit"Yet another ring was added to the Bay Meadows legal circus Friday when the land company filed its own lawsuit in San Mateo County Superior Court against San Mateo and the citizens group opposing the racetrack's redevelopment. When the Bay Meadows Land Co. on March 7 was denied intervention in the Friends of Bay Meadows lawsuit against the city and San Mateo County's elections office, filing its own lawsuit was the predictable next step, counsels on both sides of the issue said. In its lawsuit, the Bay Meadows Land Co. and plaintiff Suzanne Flecker challenge the referendum petition filed by Friends of Bay Meadows on Dec. 7, claiming it was ``so poorly drafted that it failed to meet the most basic requirements of California election law.'' The lawsuit alleges three specific failures to meet the state's election code: not advising potential signers that the referendum was protesting the adoption of an ordinance or resolution; not providing the correct title of the ordinance or resolution being challenged; and not including the full text and accompanying exhibits of the ordinance or resolution being challenged. ``These are not trivial defects,'' the lawsuit read. Robin Johansen, legal counsel for the developer, said the company filed the lawsuit for reasons similar to those in its attempt to intervene in the Friends of Bay Meadows lawsuit." The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:49 AM | Permalink. . . March 24, 2006 Vendor reneges on promise to fill voting-machine order"A company hired to supply 267 electronic voting machines to the county by May’s primary election now says it will deliver less than half that amount. This is the second time in two months a voting-machine company has not been able to deliver what the Lebanon County commissioners thought it had promised. In January, the commissioners approved the purchase of 267 iVotronic touch-screen voting machines at a cost of $2,700 each from Nebraska-based Election Systems and Software. The county was among the first in Pennsylvania to place an order with ES&S and were told the machines would be delivered on a first-come, first-served basis. That promise was crucial to the commissioners’ decision to go with ES&S, Commissioner Jo Ellen Litz said yesterday, because the electronic machines must be in place by the primary to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002. The act, passed in the wake of Florida’s hanging-chad debacle of 2000, mandates that all punch-card and lever-voting machines — like those the county has used for the past 50 years — be replaced with electronic machines. The commissioners were anxious to strike a deal with ES&S because they had already been burned by AccuPoll, the company they had contracted with in December that unexpectedly backed out of the deal. The county and ES&S reached an agreement Jan. 26, and a dozen iVotronic machines were scheduled to arrive at the end of March so poll workers could begin training on them. The rest were to be delivered in April, according to county officials. But that all changed this week, Litz said, when the county received a letter from ES&S explaining it wanted to cut the number of machines in order to supply machines to its other Pennsylvania customers, making them HAVA compliant." The story is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:54 AM | Permalink. . . Lawsuit Filed Against Tax Opponents"The president of the local chapter of the NAACP has sued the opponents of the county's proposed half-cent sales tax, claiming that a ballot argument against Measure A is misleading and exaggerates the effects of the tax. The suit, filed Thursday by Rick Callender, asserts that there are several factually incorrect statements in the argument authored by Mountain View City Councilman Greg Perry, including: - That the tax would give Santa Clara County the highest tax rate in the state. - That the Silicon Valley Leadership Group is the financial backer of Measure A. - That SVLG is pushing a bill, SB 552, that would exempt its corporate members from the new tax. - That the tax would last for more than 30 years. Callender could not be reached for comment, but State Senator Elaine Alquist, who sponsored SB 552, agreed that the opposition ballot argument is misleading. Alquist, who represents Gilroy, said the bill is "dead," and in any event, would have had little impact on Measure A." You can read the story here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:30 AM | Permalink. . . Story on Monterey VRA Initiative CaseFrom the Monterey County Herald: "Proponents of the controversial General Plan Initiative will seek a speedy reversal of a federal judge's ruling Thursday that blocks -- for now -- their measure from Monterey County voters. Backers of the stymied land-use measure will file an urgent appeal of U.S. District Court Judge James Ware's ruling that the initiative violates federal election law, their attorney Fredric Woocher said. "We are going to file a petition to hear it on an emergency basis (with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals)," Woocher said. "They don't have to do it, but at some point they will hear it." The litigation is the latest twist in the six-year political battle over a new county general plan -- a 20-year growth blueprint for unincorporated areas of the county. Thursday's ruling could have far-reaching impacts on initiative campaigns throughout the state, Woocher said. Shortly after the decision became public, Woocher said, he got a call from an attorney about an initiative in another city. "What happens to that?" he said. In his ruling, Ware said the general-plan measure proposed by slow-growth advocates violated the federal Voting Rights Act because initiative petitions weren't circulated in both English and Spanish to prospective voters. "The initiative in its present form cannot legally be adopted by the county... or presented to voters," Ware said." Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:58 AM | Permalink. . . Politicians bid to alter state initiative process"California's top election official Thursday said he has a remedy for voters who say they are sick of being propositioned endlessly by everyone from governors to masked interests, using everything from twisted advertisements to flurries of fliers. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and lawmakers, backed by the League of Women Voters, pitched a bipartisan package of initiative revamp bills that would even let the Legislature just adopt a proposition, avoiding a nasty, costly campaign. McPherson said at a Capitol news conference that the legislation would "provide greater access for all Californians,strengthen the integrity of the initiative process and result in less reliance on special-interest money." There was immediate reaction on the emotionally charged and politically sensitive topic of altering the legacy of Hiram Johnson — the governor credited with breaking Southern Pacific's grip on California a century ago with direct democracy initiatives. Responding to McPherson, state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, issued a statement calling his legislation "significantly weaker" than her own. The myriad issues surrounding California's freewheeling initiative process have been studied for decades by everyone from think tanks to pollsters. It has yielded many calls for major overhauls that have resulted in a few tweaks. But lawmakers said Thursday that in the wake of the gubernatorial recall of 2003 and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's subsequent special elections, this might be the year for change." You can read the article here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:35 AM | Permalink. . . March 23, 2006 Federal Court: Monterey Initiative Violates the Minority Language Provisions of the VRARick Hasen has the story here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 03:36 PM | Permalink. . . "Umberg sues to cut Senate foe Correa from ballot"From the Orange County Register: "Tom Umberg has sued to have state Senate opponent Lou Correa removed from the June ballot. The suit, scheduled to be heard March 28 in Sacramento, claims that Correa submitted more than the allowable 60 nominating signatures in order to reach the 40 valid ones required. "You have a desperate act by a desperate man," Correa said. "I turned in enough to qualify. I've done this enough before that I know how to do it." Umberg, an assemblyman, and Correa, a county supervisor and former assemblyman, are vying for the Democratic nomination to replace termed-out state Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Santa Ana." You can view the complaint here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 12:11 PM | Permalink. . . March 22, 2006 County struggles to comply with law"Nevada County may not be in compliance with the Help America Vote Act this year, according to the county's clerk-recorder, making it difficult for residents with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to vote. "Why are we allowing the disenfranchisement of some voters?" asked Ann Guerra, Director of the FREED Center for Independent Living, who spoke at Tuesday's Board of Supervisor's meeting. "(We're) commending you for taking this issue on," said Ana Acton, systems change advocate for the center. She emphasized the importance of helping people with disabilities to "vote in an individual and private matter the same as everyone else." Passed in 2002, HAVA requires "states adopt voting systems that are fully accessible by disabled voters and are capable of generating a permanent paper record that can be manually audited, and create a statewide computerized voter registration database," according to the Department of Justice, which on March 1 filed a lawsuit against the State of New York for its failure to comply with the federal law. In California, some counties are in compliance, while others have yet to meet it. Neither Guerra nor Acton knew the number of disabled voters in Nevada County unable to vote by absentee ballot who would be enfranchised by full HAVA compliance. However, "people like to go to the polls," said Guerra, adding that turnout among disabled voters is remarkably low. Nevada County has received $1.7 million in state and federal funds to comply with the federal voting act. Guerra and Acton said it would cost approximately $1 million to outfit county polls with a system called "Automark" - which would likely allow everyone with a disability to vote at the polls - and $125,000 for Votepad, which presents some problems for disabled voters, and may therefore not be eligible for HAVA funding, they said. However, HAVA compliant equipment may not arrive prior to elections this year, said Kathleen Smith, County Clerk, Recorder, and Registrar of Voters. "Being prepared for November elections is optimistic," Smith said at the supervisors' meeting Tuesday. The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:21 AM | Permalink. . . March 21, 2006 Diebold Inc. sued over California voting systems"Some California voters and activist groups sued the state's top election official on Tuesday in an effort to reverse the certification of certain electronic voting machines made by Diebold Inc.. The suit, filed in Superior Court in San Francisco, is the latest salvo in an ongoing dispute about the security of Diebold electronic voting machines, focused on Diebold's TSX touch-screen system. A month ago, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson certified Diebold Election System's TSX and Optical Scan products for use in this year's elections after a review of their security. An earlier, slightly modified version of the TSX was used in California's November 2005 special election. "In certifying the Diebold machines, the secretary has sidestepped his duty to deny certification to voting systems that violate state and federal standards," Dolores Huerta, a co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America and plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. "Diebold systems have failed in security tests and in communities around the country." The lawsuit seeks to block the purchase of the TSX systems and a reversal of the secretary of state's certification." You can read the article here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:30 AM | Permalink. . . March 20, 2006 Privatized democracy"Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho's failure to reach an accord with any of the three voting equipment companies that Florida now certifies has served the important purpose of shining a klieg light on a significant weakness in state elections law. Why on earth do private companies hold so much sway - with relatively little oversight - in a process so central to democracy? State governments have long recognized that regulation of private utilities is necessary to protect consumers from unfair practices. Is it not similarly important to hold more accountable companies that provide the technology used to cast and count ballots? The answer is obvious: Yes. Yet, the same state government that certifies three companies doesn't require as a condition for their doing business in Florida that no county supervisor be left high and dry. Whatever their problems with any supervisor - in this case, the one who administers elections in the state capital, no less - private companies should not be permitted to potentially undermine the voting process and the rights of citizens. Fundamentally, administering an election is not like producing widgets. The headaches that the elections supervisor has endured since last year are well documented. Diebold Election Systems, Election Systems and Software, and Sequoia Voting Systems all have chosen not to do business with Mr. Sancho, a nationally known elections expert and outspoken equipment security advocate. (The supervisor is currently trying to do business with a fourth firm, which he hopes the state will certify quickly.) Because of the three companies' posture, Leon County is not in compliance for operating voting equipment for disabled people, as required by federal law. Mr. Sancho's failure to meet a compliance deadline has cost the county more than $564,000 in grant money, which might not be recouped." You can read the editorial here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:29 AM | Permalink. . . March 16, 2006 "Alameda County ready to shop for new voting machine system""Four years after buying new Diebold voting machines for $12 million, Alameda County is headed back into the market to negotiate for up to $17.8 million of new voting machines. With an impassioned debate spanning two days, county supervisors anguished over sagging public confidence in voting and uncertainty in the technology, then found themselves divided over how to handle elections for coming years. "This is not the purchasing of a new vehicle fleet," said Board president Keith Carson, "this is fundamental to all the rights of every citizen in the county." "There's too many unknown things," said Supervisor Gail Steele. "This $17 million is a huge amount of money with the uncertainty that we have." But when the county's elections chief warned that delays could trigger new federal requirements and force the county into filling its polling places with more electronic voting equipment, Alice Lai-Bitker joined supervisors Nate Miley and Scott Haggerty in pressing ahead with the purchase negotiations. County elections and contracts officials will negotiate with Allen, Texas-based Diebold Election Systems Inc. and Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Systems, the two voting-machine makers rated highest by a panel of voting advocates, residents and county officials. The winning company would provide a system that principally handles paper ballots with optical ballot scanners plus two ATM-like touch-screen voting machines in each polling place like those the county uses now, the latter to meet federal mandates for handicapped-accessible voting equipment. The touch-screens would print a backup record of the electronic ballot for voters to check and elections workers to use in recounts. The decision marks a turning point for Alameda County and a noteworthy moment in the national debate over voting technology. Federal voting-reform law passed after the 2000 election debacle requires all counties to buy accessible voting equipment, and the machines that easily accommodate the broadest array of disabled voters are computerized. Yet the migration to fully computerized voting, fueled with billions in federal grant dollars, has collided with concern over vote manipulation and computer breakdowns. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:44 AM | Permalink. . . March 07, 2006 "E-vote pioneer will return to paper ballots"From the Oakland Tribune: "For elections, Alameda County is headed back to the future, and what that future looks like will play out today in the city of Piedmont. After six years of electronic ballots, voters in Piedmont's municipal elections will be marking their choices on paper ballots, and so far that is the direction Alameda County is headed for the June primary. The city has a history of being a pioneer in voting technologies for the county, even for the state. Piedmont made California history in 1999 with the state's first election conducted on ATM-like touch-screen voting machines. Riverside County and Alameda County were close behind, and by the last statewide race more than a third of state voters were casting fully electronic ballots. Yet paperless touch-screen voting has fallen from favor after three years of criticism from computer scientists and voting activists who say fraud and errors on the machines can be virtually undetectable. California and many other states now require that voters have some form of paper printout to double-check their electronic vote and that elections officials use that paper for recounts. But most voting machine makers did not adapt their touch screens for printers intime for use in elections this spring and early summer. So Piedmont is headed back to plain paper ballots, and so probably is Alameda, at least for the June elections." Posted by Randy Riddle at 01:01 PM | Permalink. . . March 06, 2006 County gets peek at assistance devices for disabled voters"Providing independent voting options for people with disabilities to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 is posing challenges for many jurisdictions in the country. Although electronic voting devices are becoming more prevalent, one Washington State-based company is taking a low-tech approach to provide cash-strapped and electricity challenged precincts with voting options for the blind, deaf and disabled. The Voting-on-Paper Assistive Device, or Vote-PAD equipment, was presented at the Humboldt County Elections Advisory Committee Thursday evening. According to the company Vote-PAD, Inc., the Vote-PAD device is an inexpensive, non-electronic, voter-assist device that helps most people with visual or dexterity impairments to vote and can be customized for different election’s hand-counted or optically-scanned paper ballots.
Smith said most people’s initial reaction was that it looked too simple. “The simplicity is the beauty of it,” she said. The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:04 AM | Permalink. . . Judge confirms putting Luellig recall on ballot"A judge Friday backed the city clerk’s decision to certify the recall petition to unseat Councilmember Paul Luellig. San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge John P. Vander Feer in Barstow additionally ordered the City Council to review the certificate at its Monday meeting and vote on a resolution to combine a special election with the June primary election. City Clerk JoAnne Cousino issued a notice saying enough signatures were inspected and validated to issue the certificate of sufficiency for the petition to be placed on the ballot. Cousino’s decision marks a reversal in her previous position, where she rendered the recall petition void. In a hearing this week, Vander Feer initially ordered that the recall proponents be given a chance to go over the signatures and other relevant documents along with Cousino and the county registrar of voters. Over a two-day period, Cousino reviewed and verified a total of 2,049 signatures, two more than the number required to qualify the petition for the ballot. That is more than 25 percent of the total signatures collected." The story is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:57 AM | Permalink. . . Hearing today on Yorba Linda 'Right to Vote'"An Orange County Superior Court judge today will hear arguments in Yorba Linda City Clerk Kathie Mendoza’s bid to invalidate a ballot initiative that seeks to give voters the final say on major developments. Judge John M. Watson issued a tentative ruling Friday that said Mendoza has no standing to challenge the “Right to Vote” initiative on the June 6 ballot. Watson will hold his hearing on the case at 10:30 a.m. before issuing a final ruling." Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:55 AM | Permalink. . . March 02, 2006 State looks into charges of GOP registration fraudFrom the Orange County Register: "The California Secretary of State's Office launched an investigation Wednesday into hundreds of Republican registrations in Orange County done during a $100,000 drive to increase GOP voters in a Democratic stronghold. As Republican leaders continued to blame three rogue circulators who were paid for each registration, most of the questions centered on Christopher S. Dinoff, 30, a Riverside man who was fired by a GOP-hired contractor after Dinoff was accused of strong-arming voters into registering as Republicans. Meanwhile, the Orange County Registrar of Voters has confirmed 76 instances in which registrations were involuntarily changed. Most were changed from Democrat to Republican, a review of the records show. Of those, 35 are attributed to Dinoff, who signed up voters in Westminster, Anaheim, Stanton and Garden Grove." Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:13 AM | Permalink. . . E-voting machines spark concerns"As state officials race to evaluate voting machines for the June elections, critics complained Wednesday that the state was short-circuiting its own rules and putting substandard tools in the hands of voters. The latest crop of machines are more accessible for disabled voters than ever before but still show significant errors in "volume testing" that simulates an election. Testing 50 to 100 machines at a time has revealed problems — some minor, some major — with virtually every kind of voting system that vendors want to sell in the state, from common ballot jams and too-touchy touchscreen errors to system crashes and the rare lost ballot. In all but one case, in which 59 total errors arose on 100 Hart optical scanners, state elections staff is recommending Secretary of State Bruce McPherson approve the machines for voters, with detailed instructions for recalibrating and rebooting if problems occur on Election Day. Still, it's unclear that the California rush before June's primary to approve new systems will dramatically change the state's voting landscape, except for one class of voters. In apparently every county, voters with disabilities will be able to cast ballots more or less without assistance — many for the first time. "Thanks for giving us an accessible vote," Dan Kaiser of the California Council for the Blind told elections officials here Wednesday. Congress made disabled access part of voting reforms passed under the Help America Vote Act following the 2000 presidential election. State legislatures in California and a dozen other states set the hurdle higher still by requiring printers on the ATM-like voting machines so voters could verify their choices and elections officials could have a paper record to recount. Even though deadlines for both were Jan. 1, 2006, the nation's dozen voting-machine firms managed to get only one machine meeting both requirements by that date. McPherson ordered makers into a tight schedule of applications and testing, culminating in Wednesday's hearing before his staff on three firms' systems. Decisions on each are expected within the next two weeks. Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:11 AM | Permalink. . . March 01, 2006 Editorial: McPherson's ChoiceFrom the Sacramento Bee: Until McPherson acted, more than two-thirds of the state's 58 counties had no voting systems that passed legal muster. Many of those counties, including El Dorado and San Joaquin, had been planning to use the Diebold touch-screen or optical scan systems. When questions arose about whether a key component within those systems, a memory card, could be hacked, the secretary of state sent the component back to Washington for further review by federal testers. That was back in December. Despite McPherson's urgent calls for an expedited review, federal officials did not respond until yesterday. Under intense pressure from local voting officials, McPherson convened a panel of state experts, including three computer scientists who had been highly critical of the Diebold system. Their report acknowledges "serious vulnerabilities" in the Diebold system. However, it concludes that with new security precautions, those vulnerabilities are manageable." Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:41 AM | Permalink. . . |
|
||||||||||||
|
© 2008 Randy Riddle |
|||||||||||||
