|
May 11, 2008 Providing legal resources and election news to California election officials and the attorneys who represent them. |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 » June 30, 2006 "Vernon Abused Electoral Process by Not Counting Ballots, State Official Says""The California secretary of state contends that Vernon is abusing the electoral process by refusing to count ballots from its disputed April election and is backing an effort to strip the city's power to administer elections for two years. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson called on Vernon to count the ballots, describing the stalemate as bizarre and legally questionable. "This is an egregious abuse of the process," he said in a letter to a lawmaker in support of temporarily wresting electoral control from Vernon. Although McPherson controls all statewide elections, he has no authority over voting in Vernon or other cities. But he is the highest-ranking state official to publicly question Vernon's tactics. McPherson said California election codes state that if balloting is disputed, the votes can either be recounted or contested. But not counting the votes at all, he said, is an "extraordinary step." Vernon, an industrial town of only 91 residents, has refused to count the ballots since the April 11 election, saying three challengers and their roommates were not residents and should not have been allowed to register to vote or run for office. Attorneys for the city have argued that the ballots need to remain unopened and uncounted to resolve lawsuits filed on behalf of the city and against it. Vernon fought for months to keep the challengers out of the election, the city's first contested race in 25 years. But a judge said they should be allowed to run. A bill introduced by Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton), now stalled in the Legislature, would give the county registrar of voters control of Vernon's elections for the next two years. But the bill has garnered only modest interest, with some legislators saying they don't want to delve into the town's politics while court cases are pending. State Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey) said she wanted to wait until the lawsuits were resolved, though she said the state may eventually need to step in." The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:57 AM | Permalink. . . "Oakland voters may yet see ranked picks""The City Council's Rules Committee relented Thursday and agreed to consider placing a measure on the November ballot amending the City Charter to allow instant runoff voting. The powerful Rules Committee, chaired by council President Ignacio De La Fuente (Glenview-Fruitvale), will take up the issue again July 13. The full council is scheduled to discuss instant runoff voting at its July 18 meeting. In instant runoff voting, rather than voting for one candidate, a voter ranks three candidates in the order of his or her preference. If the first choice fails to win a majority of votes in the first round of tabulations, votes for a voter's second and then third choices are counted. The story is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:54 AM | Permalink. . . June 29, 2006 "Coalition calls for election recount""A coalition of election watchdog organizations is calling on the San Diego County Registrar of Voters to conduct a full manual recount of the June 6 primary election because of alleged security breaches involving touch-screen voting machines. Specifically, the California Election Protection Network contends the county violated federal and state regulations requiring “secure custody” of voting machines by allowing poll workers to take them home before election day. “There is no proof of this election's legitimacy,” said Jim Soper, a computer software engineer with the group. “Despite a mountain of proof that these machines are easily hackable, Secretary of State (Bruce) McPherson certified the system, claiming a set of handling procedures would keep the machines safe. Now we learn that machines were unsecured in poll workers' homes before the election, rendering those procedures useless.” Officials of the California Election Protection Network held a town hall meeting last night in Oceanside to discuss alleged “election violations” in San Diego County. San Diego County Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas dismissed the complaint as “paranoia,” and said all proper procedures were followed in the June election and there is no reason for a recount. Haas noted that only about 7,000 of the nearly 500,000 people who voted in the June 6 election in San Diego County used touch-screen machines. They were mostly voters who were handicapped, required translation or voted in person at the registrar's office. Most other voters used an optical scan voting system that required them to fill out a paper ballot. The registrar said the county followed the chain of custody requirements for voting machines set forth by the secretary of state." The story is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:04 AM | Permalink. . . June 28, 2006 Immigration measure off ballot"The backer of a San Bernardino city immigration initiative says he probably will start over after a judge ruled Monday that he did not gather enough petition signatures to put the measure before voters. San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge A. Rex Victor said that the number of signatures needed to qualify the City of San Bernardino Illegal Immigration Relief Act should have been set about twice as high as it was. The judge said he would allow San Bernardino resident Joseph Turner, who wrote the proposed law, 10 days to gather more signatures. More than 1,600 additional valid signatures would be needed. Turner said he probably won't try. "When you put a lot of work into something and an activist judge throws it out, it's disappointing. I'm not going to lie," he said. "I don't anticipate going for the 10 days. I have to work for a living." Instead, Turner said, he will probably start collecting signatures for a new measure, and he plans to submit voter petitions in six months. "It will be more draconian," he said. "It will bring the hammer down on illegal immigrants." Turner did not give specifics. The proposed law would have enlisted city agencies to try to curtail illegal immigration through sanctions on employers who hired illegal immigrants and landlords who rented to them. The judge's ruling hinged on a section of San Bernardino's charter that requires petition sponsors to submit voter signatures equal to 30 percent of the total ballots cast the last time the city elected a mayor. In November, when Turner started collecting signatures, City Clerk Rachel Clark told him the standard was an election in 2001, when incumbent Judith Valles faced no challengers. Turner submitted his petitions in April, about two months after a landslide victory by Pat Morris in a mayoral election that drew more than twice as many voters as in 2001. The petitions had 3,124 names, and the county registrar of voters stopped counting at 2,217 verified signatures -- one more than required. But Victor ruled that the February election should have been the standard, and the cutoff to qualify for the ballot should be 4,771 verified signatures." The story is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:30 AM | Permalink. . . June 27, 2006 "Study shows US electronic voting machines vulnerable""The nation's three most commonly purchased electronic voting machines are all vulnerable to fraud, a study released on Tuesday found. The study also concluded, however, that steps could be taken to reduce the chances of hackers breaking into these systems and undermining the integrity of state and national elections. "These machines are vulnerable to attack. That's the bad news," said Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. "The good news is that we know how to reduce the risks and the solutions are within reach," Waldman said. The Brennan Center Task Force on Voting System Security, an initiative of the Brennan Center, conducted the study, which it called the most comprehensive study of electronic voting machines to date. Larry Norden, chairman of the task force of government and private scientists, voting machine experts and security officials said about 80 percent of voters will vote on one of these electronic systems in November mid-term elections." You can read the article here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 03:43 PM | Permalink. . . June 25, 2006 'Petition awaits judge's ruling""A San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge will decide the next step in the fight over the City of San Bernardino Illegal Immigration Relief Act. A judge will decide Monday whether backers of a controversial San Bernardino city immigration initiative gathered enough petition signatures to qualify the measure for a public vote. In making his ruling, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge A. Rex Victor must determine whether the benchmark for the needed number of signatures should be a 2001 mayoral election with a low turnout, or a heated February race that drew twice as many voters. At issue is local resident Joseph Turner's City of San Bernardino Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which would prohibit the city from operating day-laborer centers, require private centers to ensure that day laborers are authorized to work in the United States, and empower police to seize the vehicles of anyone soliciting undocumented immigrants for day labor. The measure, the first of its kind in the country, has attracted widespread publicity. Some local leaders, including San Bernardino Mayor Pat Morris, have denounced it as racist and unconstitutional. At a hearing Friday, Bradley Hertz, an attorney for initiative opponent Florentino Garza, said City Clerk Rachel Clark should have told Turner the required number of signatures might change after the February race. But ultimately, Hertz said, Turner made the legal challenge possible himself. "Everyone knew there was going to be a ... runoff," Hertz said. "All he had to do was turn in the signatures prior to that election." The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 07:42 AM | Permalink. . . June 24, 2006 "Immigration initiative hearing gets ugly""Joseph Turner can't say he didn't see it coming. The angry demonstrator threatened to hit Turner if he said anything more about his mother. For a few minutes, Turner restrained himself, then he gave in. "Do you know what?'' he said. "Your mother can go (bleep) herself.'' And that's how an orderly court hearing on San Bernardino's controversial anti-illegal immigration ballot measure Friday afternoon turned into a minor melee. The demonstrator, identified by sheriff's officials as Robert Ballantyne, slapped Turner and was in turn slapped with a misdemeanor battery charge. The dispute followed a hearing on whether Turner collected enough signatures to force a city-wide vote on a sweeping ballot measure that would ban city-funded day labor centers, punish those who rent or do business with illegal immigrants and require that city communications be done in English only. The judge heard oral arguments and said he would have a ruling Monday morning. The fireworks following the hearing revealed the heated nature of Turner's controversial initiative, which some critics denounce as racist and mean-spirited." The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:08 PM | Permalink. . . June 22, 2006 Padilla oral argumentI attended the Padilla en banc oral argument this morning. It appears likely that the court will conclude that the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act do not apply to recall petitions. While the other side may find four, and maybe five, votes for application of the VRA to such petitions, it is unlikely to garner the six votes necessary to overturn the trial court decision dismissing the VRA challenge. Much of the early argument concerned whether the case was moot, a point Judges Tallman and Klienfeld pursued. There was some uncertainty about the standard to apply in determining whether a case was capable of repetition but evading review, with neither the judges nor counsel articulating a specific standard. Interestingly, all of the counsel arguing the case agreed that the case was not moot because it was capable of repetition but evading review. It appears likely that the court will reach the merits of the case. On the merits, Judges Pregerson and Reinhardt emphasized that the VRA is a remedial statute that must be broadly construed, and that the petition process is an integral part of California's direct democracy system. But there was a lot of skepticism about whether Congress intended to extend the VRA to the private circulation of recall petition, even though California law largely prescribes the content and format of the petition, and requires county election officials to approve the recall petition before it may be circulated. Near the end of the argument, Fred Woocher, counsel for the proponents of the recall, pointed out that two other circuits had previously concluded that the VRA did not apply to petitions circulated under the laws of other states, and that Congress did nothing in response to change the VRA when it was subsequently reauthorized. Accordingly, it appears likely that the court will conclude that such petitions are not "provided by" the government, and therefore are not covered by the minority language provisions of the VRA. Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:56 AM | Permalink. . . June 19, 2006 Supreme Court Decision in Independent Energy Procucers CaseThis case involves the propreity of preelection review and whether the issue addressed by the measure was subject to the initiative power. Here is the Court's summary of its holding: "For the reasons set forth below, we have reached the following conclusions with respect to these two issues. On the first issue, we explain initially that the general rule set forth in Brosnahan v. Eu, supra, 31 Cal.3d 1 (Brosnahan I) —recognizing a strong presumption against preelection resolution of a challenge to an initiative measure — is inapplicable to the challenge raised here, because the challenge is not based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the substance of the initiative measure but rather on the contention that he measure in question is not the type of measure that may be adopted through the initiative process. Nonetheless, as we further explain, although preelection resolution of this type of a challenge is not presumptively improper, the challenge here at issue — unlike the type of challenge at issue in Costa — generally will not become moot after an election if the measure is adopted, and thus such a claim reasonably is susceptible to judicial resolution either before or after an election. As a consequence, when such a challenge is brought prior to an election, a court should recognize that the need for an expedited preelection resolution of the claim is less compelling than with regard to the type of claim at issue in Costa. Accordingly, in such a case a court should take into consideration the availability of postelection relief in deciding whether it is preferable to resolve the issue in the often charged and rushed atmosphere of an expedited preelection review, or instead to leave the challenge for resolution with the benefit of the full, unhurried briefing, oral argument, and deliberation that generally will be available after the election. On the second issue, we conclude that the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting article XII, section 5 as precluding the people, through the initiative process, from adopting a statutory provision that grants additional authority to the PUC. Past California decisions establish that language in the California Constitution recognizing the authority of the Legislature to take specified action generally is interpreted to encompass the exercise of such legislative power either by the Legislature or by the people through the initiative process. Although the Court of Appeal was of the view that the specific wording of article XII, section 5 required an exception to this general proposition, as we shall explain the language of that constitutional provision is at most ambiguous. Particularly when this language is read in light of the origin and purpose of the provision, it is clear that the constitutional provision cannot reasonably be interpreted to bar the people, through the initiative process, from enacting a statute or statutes conferring additional authority upon the PUC. Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be reversed." Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:52 AM | Permalink. . . "Judges to Rule on Use of English-Only Initiative Petitions"From the LA Times: "Federal challenges to English-only initiative petitions are roiling election officials across the state and have thrown into doubt a handful of citizen-spawned ballot issues. The question is whether petitions circulated for signatures to qualify initiatives and referendums for the ballot must be translated for voters who speak another language. California began providing Spanish-language ballots statewide in 2002, and local jurisdictions also provide multilingual election materials. But petitions, which are written by ordinary people hoping to change laws from the grass-roots level, are often available in English only. Federal judges have disagreed on the question, resulting in disruptions to elections in Loma Linda, Santa Ana, Rosemead and Monterey. Today, a lawyer will ask U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins in Los Angeles to delay action on a challenge to a slow-growth initiative in Loma Linda until a federal appeals court issues a ruling. "There's unfortunately so much uncertainty," said attorney Darryl Wold, who challenged the Loma Linda petitions. "No one knows what they need to do." Multilingual petitions emerged as a legal question in Santa Ana, where prominent Latino activist Nativo Lopez challenged the English-only petitions that triggered his recall from the school board three years ago. Lopez, backed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, had claimed the English-only petitions violated the Voting Rights Act. The federal legislation, passed in 1965, was the key to expanding the franchise to voters regardless of race. It is a centerpiece of the American civil rights movement. Lopez and his supporters also argued that the petitions tricked voters in overwhelmingly Latino Santa Ana to sign on to his ouster. Lopez, who was recalled by 70% of the voters, lost in every city precinct, said Audrey Yamagata-Noji, president of the board of education for the Santa Ana Unified School District. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals eventually ruled that petitions had to be printed in languages that voters can understand. "Everybody and their brother is using this opinion," said John Trasviña, interim head of MALDEF. "We're talking about carrying out the basic principles of the democracy: There's one election system for all citizens and all peoples." Opponents say the only real effect of requiring translated petitions will be to make it more difficult for citizens who want to directly change government through the initiative process." Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:15 AM | Permalink. . . "Touch-screen voting's steep learning curve""While 21 more California counties made the leap into touch-screen voting in this month's primary election, problems continued to surround the controversial electronic systems. Across the state, troubles linked to the high-tech systems delayed voting, slowed counting and left people questioning the results of tight elections. "I'm still feeling that electronic voting is not ready for prime time," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan group that deals with issues of voting and technology. While the election featured the usual glitches and hiccups that accompany any statewide vote, a number of problems stood out: -- In Kern County, early morning voters were told to come back later when numerous voting machines could not be used because county election officials failed to purge the voter access cards of the codes from the last election. -- In at least one Stockton precinct, state-required security seals were pulled from the voting machines, which then were not taken out of service, as state rules require. -- Precinct workers in San Diego were allowed to keep the touch-screen machines in their homes, under minimal security, for as long as three weeks before the June 6 election, leading Democratic activists to call for a hand count of all ballots in a close congressional race. The continuing complaints and problems with various electronic voting systems probably will force the state and its counties to take a hard look at whether the move toward high-tech voting is worth the trouble." The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:04 AM | Permalink. . . "Problem found in optical scan voting system""Mike Moran is positive that he voted for himself May 2 as a Democratic committeeman from Hudson precinct 1C. He's sure that he not only wrote his name on his ballot next to ``write-in,'' but also filled in the oval on the ballot next to ``write-in'' -- both of which are required by Ohio law. He's also convinced that other friends and family members wrote his name in as well. Yet, somehow, Moran managed not to get elected to the precinct post. The Summit County Board of Elections has the paper ballots. To Moran, the situation is a no-brainer -- go back and look at the them to find out. But Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's office said no -- the ballots can't be touched. Moran is one of 28 write-in candidates for precinct committee spots -- 25 Democrats and three Republicans -- who failed to get elected in the primary. Their nonelections have revealed a problem with the county's new optical-scan voting system, and are giving election officials a lesson in the kind of issues they have to be on the alert for in the future. ``Our election system still needs work if there are that many errors still occurring,'' said Moran, who serves on the Hudson City Council. Elections board Director Bryan Williams said it's unclear exactly what happened in the races because several types of errors could have taken place. Those casting a ballot for a write-in candidate needed to fill in the write-in oval and write the candidate's name on the line next to the oval for the votes to count. Some voters did one but not both, causing some of the problems, Williams said." The article is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:58 AM | Permalink. . . "Sequoia quietly leading state e-voting""For three years, the nation's two largest suppliers of voting machinery have driven feverishly for sales and shown the symptoms of overextension — missed deliveries, faulty equipment and breach-of-contract lawsuits. Until recently, the supplier running a close third kept a lower profile than competitors Diebold and Election Systems & Software, though quietly snapping up sales of voting systems on both coasts, all of Nevada and Louisiana, as well as Chicago and Cook County. With a $13.3 million contract signed Friday by Alameda County, Sequoia Voting Systems arguably became the dominant voting-system maker in California, with more counties than any other. Outside California, a controversy has sprung up over the foreign ownership of Oakland-based Sequoia. Politicians in the Windy City and CNN journalist Lou Dobbs suggested recently that the federal government was derelict in not having investigated Sequoia and its acquisition last year by Smartmatic, a Boca Raton, Fla., firm largely owned by Venezuelan businessmen. After Chicago and Cook County were plagued with delays this spring in tallying a primary, city alderman Edward Burke suggested Sequoia's voting machines were part of a conspiracy by Venezuela President Hugo Chavez to manipulate U.S. elections. "We may have stumbled across what could be (an) international conspiracy to subvert the electoral process in the United States of America," Burke told reporters. "Tell me a single, solitary reason there is to trace ownership through three shell corporations to the Curacao Islands and its roots to Venezuela, where they have already been involved with the dictator of Venezuela, who Defense Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld says is an enemy of the United States." Soon after, editorial writers at Investors Business Daily warned that "we might just get ambushed again if the Venezuelan government ends up controlling our elections." In late May, the U.S. Treasury Department requested Sequoia and Smartmatic documents on the transaction, as a potential preliminary to review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., a process typically reserved for defense firms. A few days later, Dobbs opened fire on electronic voting and Sequoia in particular as "an outright threat to our democracy." Next to a television logo reading "Democracy for Sale," Dobbs said, "we know what we're dealing with, and it is a dysfunctional government that is trying to render our elections precisely the same." The indignation has taken Sequoia executives by surprise, partly because Sequoia has been foreign-owned for 24 years. The firm's roots go back to 1890." You can read the article here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:57 AM | Permalink. . . June 15, 2006 Diebold Apologizes To Kern County"The company whose voter access cards led to last week's election fiasco apologized to Kern County Tuesday. Diebolt Vice President Steven Moreland took full responsibility for the snafu. The company makes the electronic voting machines and voter access cards. The mishap led to long lines and voters were turned away from the polls. Moreland said they didn't know the enhanced security measure on their voting machines would reject old voter access cards. "In no way should this reflect on your election staff," said Moreland. "The staff you have here is extremely professional, very talented, and passionate about their job there is no way could they have fore seen the circumstance happening because we did not know about it or communicate it internally." Next week, the board will meet to discuss whether to strip County Clerk Ann Barnett of her duties with the election department." The story is here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:10 AM | Permalink. . . Recall effort faces roadblock"A recall petition against a council member was approved Wednesday but a similar measure against the mayor was ruled invalid because of its wording, the city clerk said. In Grand Terrace, voters elect five council members who then name a mayor from among themselves. The petition of intent seeking the recall of Mayor Maryetta Ferre addressed her as mayor, not as a council member. "She was elected as a council member and that is the position she is to be recalled from," City Clerk Brenda Mesa said. Bill Hays, who is representing citizens seeking the recall, served Ferre and Councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia with petitions at the May 25 and June 8 council meetings. Hays said Mesa called him Wednesday with the news. "Technically, there is no position as mayor of the city of Grand Terrace," Hays said. "She is not elected, she is selected." You can read the story here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:04 AM | Permalink. . . June 09, 2006 "State wants limited voting machine checks""Months after a maverick elections supervisor irritated a leading voting-machine company and state officials by conducting unorthodox tests on voting equipment -- and finding security problems -- the state wants to make it harder for counties to check voting machines. The state is proposing rules that require all 67 election supervisors in Florida to get approval from the state Division of Elections before testing their voting equipment for any problems, including whether or not it has security flaws or if the vote-counting software is working correctly. The new rule would require county supervisors to submit a ''testing plan'' to the division, as well as to notify the maker of the machine before the test can take place. Any results of the test would have to be sent to state officials. ''The purpose is to make the process more transparent,'' said Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for the Department of State. ``Certainly any supervisor can test any machine. It's just so the department and vendor will be included. In essence, it's so all parties have the same information.'' But Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho says the state proposal is an effort to curtail any future tests of voting equipment. Last year, Sancho allowed computer experts to hack into his county's optical-scan voting machine system, which is manufactured by Diebold, the same company that makes the ATM-styled touch-screen machines used in Broward and Miami-Dade counties. The flaws exposed by the effort eventually led California, and then Florida, to devise new security procedures that prohibit one person from ever being alone with voting equipment." You can read the article here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:13 AM | Permalink. . . June 08, 2006 "Tallying the lessons""The county's top election official is re-evaluating how democracy is waged in the wake of Tuesday's primary election, which was riddled with voting machine problems and delays. Before November's general election, in which more voters are expected to decide on more issues, elections officials likely will beef up poll worker training, make sure more tech-support staff is available and could reduce the number of polling locations in order to prevent problems that delayed some polls opening by more than three hours, said Deborah Hench, San Joaquin County's registrar of voters. "You have to compare it to having the Asparagus Festival in 330 locations," Hench said of the effort to train and deploy poll workers at 333 polling locations spread throughout the county. Counting the ballots also took longer than in all but six other counties statewide, lasting until 3:28 a.m. Wednesday. Poll workers complained that the Diebold TSx electronic voting machines used for the first time in two years Tuesday were too difficult to set up and training that the workers received did not adequately explain how to assemble or disassemble the machines." You view the article here. Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:06 AM | Permalink. . . June 05, 2006 "Ballot Counting Could Delay Calif. Results"From the Washington Post: "Alameda County's return to hand counting of some paper ballots could make for a long evening for poll workers Tuesday and leave the state's neck-and-neck Democratic gubernatorial primary undecided overnight. Alameda could be the race's determining factor because it has 5.7 percent of the state's registered Democrats. "We are a little nervous about statewide cliffhangers," said Guy Ashley, a spokesman for the Alameda County registrar of voters. "We would like to be fast and accurate, but if we have to choose one or the other, accurate is what we're going to choose." The county on the east side of San Francisco Bay sidelined its electronic voting machines after they failed to meet federal and state standards. The county's board of supervisors voted in March to return to paper ballots until the county could replace the 4,000 Diebold Election Systems touchscreen machines. County officials hope to have new machines in time for the November election, but they still are negotiating with several companies." Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:15 AM | Permalink. . . |
|
||||||||||||
|
© 2008 Randy Riddle |
|||||||||||||
