May 15, 2008

Providing legal resources and election news to California election officials and the attorneys who represent them.

« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 25, 2006

ACLU Sues to Permit Felony Probationers to Register to Vote in California

The ACLU -- representing the California Leauge of Women Voters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and three individuals -- has filed a lawsuit challenging the California Secretary of State's position that felony probationers incarcerated in county jail may not register to vote. The Secretary of State's position is based on a 2005 opinion of the California Attorney General. According to the action -- filed as an original petition for writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal -- the State's construction of the law renders over 100,000 California residents ineligible to register to vote.

The Court of Appeal has issued an order directing the State to respond to the ACLU's action by September 11.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:59 AM | Permalink. . .

"Rival groups seek to write argument against ballot measure"

"Two groups oppose a combined pay hike and term limit for county supervisors.

One opposes term limits. The other is against pay raises for elected officials.

By law, only one can write the argument against the measure in the official ballot statement. The county's registrar of voters will decide the winner Friday with the flip of a coin.

Even before the toss, one group is already crying foul. A member of the group says the rival group has written an intentionally bad argument in order to help the ballot measure, not hurt it.

"That's just so disgusting I can't believe it," said Sean Brunske, a representative of Citizens Against Pay Raises for Politicians, the group opposing salary increases.

Approved for the ballot last month by San Bernardino County's Board of Supervisors, Measure P would amend the county's Charter by imposing a 12-year, 3-term limit on county supervisors' service and change the formula for how they are paid.

Initially proposed by Supervisor Paul Biane, the measure would mean a $29,000 annual salary increase plus benefits for county supervisors within three years.

Brunske's group says it intends to raise $250,000 to oppose the effort. In its proposed ballot argument, it decries Measure P as "really designed to disguise a pay increase for politicians who want political cover for raising their own salaries 50 percent!"

Its rival, "Citizens Against Term Limits," does not mention the pay raise. Instead, it takes issue with the wisdom of term limits.

"Don't force good elected officials to leave office. Vote no on Measure P!" it argues.

Under election law, certain people and organizations are given priority in writing ballot arguments. A county supervisor would receive precedence, as would a group that circulated petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot. In the absence of opposing arguments from either, however, "bona fide associations of citizens" are allowed to submit ballot statements.

What "bona fide" means, however, is open for debate.

The article is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:25 AM | Permalink. . .

August 24, 2006

"California ballot measure that backers tried to kill won't die"

"An initiative to protect gas tax money from raids by the Legislature, which had been purposely crippled and left for dead by its own backers, is heading to voters anyway.

The office of Secretary of State Bruce McPherson confirmed Wednesday that the initiative qualified for the June 2008 ballot with 605,610 valid signatures.

The proposal, which strictly bars any non-transportation use of state gas tax money, was originally made last spring and was drafted by an alliance of labor, business and local government interests. Then in May, the governor and legislative leaders struck a compromise in Proposition 1A that, though weaker, was eventually endorsed by those backing the original proposal.

Now they will be in the awkward position of opposing their own measure. As part of the compromise, they had tried to prevent the initiative from qualifying by not submitting 300,000 signatures, but were surprised when even a much-smaller sample gave them 7,507 more valid signatures than necessary."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:06 AM | Permalink. . .

August 22, 2006

"Two signatures may halt councilman's ballot efforts"

"Two signatures will be the focus of Councilman Dan Rodriguez's efforts to get his name on the November City Council election ballot.

On Aug. 15 Pomona City Clerk Marie Macias wrote Rodriguez that the nomination petition he submitted to run for re-election to his District 3 seat was insufficient because it had 18 valid signatures, two short of the minimum required.

Rodriguez said Monday his lawyers will file a suit today seeking to overrule the city clerk's decision.

At this point the focus of the case will be two young men who live in Rodriguez's district but whose signatures were not accepted by Macias.

One signature was not accepted because the person printed his name and didn't match the signature on the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters rolls. The other rejected signature involved a man whose address didn't match the one on the rolls."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 04:28 PM | Permalink. . .

August 16, 2006

"Lawsuit: Wording of Greenlight ballot measure 'confusing'"

"Greenlight residents group leader Phil Arst is suing the city of Newport Beach over how the city worded Greenlight's initiative for the November ballot.

The measure, commonly known as Greenlight II but officially called Measure X, would tighten the voter controls on major developments in the city.

With the suit, filed Monday in Orange County Superior Court, Arst seeks to block the ballot language drafted by the city attorney and have it replaced with a description he wrote. The suit says the city's language is "lengthy, disjointed and confusing to the average reader."

Arst said Tuesday that what the city wrote will confuse and possibly bias voters because it focuses on technical issues and only mentions voter approval — the hallmark of the measure — at the very end.

"People that signed the initiative petition can't recognize that what they signed and approved of is being voted on," he said."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:10 AM | Permalink. . .

August 14, 2006

"Editorial: State must repay counties for special election"

The Sacramento Bee editorial is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 09:04 AM | Permalink. . .

"New voting machines questioned"

From the Sacramento Bee:

"While the November election marks the first time all counties in California will be in compliance with the federal Help America Vote Act, county elections officials are frustrated with the disabled access component of the law.

Even though state and federal officials allocated millions of dollars to reimburse counties for the cost of new voting machines, some county registrars argue they'll be outdated in a few years, leaving local governments with antiquated systems, millions of dollars in maintenance and replacement costs -- and frustrated voters.

"It's a disaster," said Freddie Oakley, Yolo County registrar. "We're sinking millions, nationwide billions, of dollars into technology that is not ready for the marketplace and that will be obsolete even earlier.

"We are all purchasing gold-plated shovels with rope handles. They look great, but they're not going to do the job for long."

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that counties nationwide replace punch-card systems -- the ones blamed for the problems during the 2000 presidential election -- and that access to voting be improved for disabled voters at every polling location.

In California, new voting systems also must provide a paper trail for verification purposes and cannot use wireless components, shrinking the pool of machines from which counties can choose.

Jan Garrett, executive director of the Center for Independent Living serving Berkeley and Oakland, said current law should be "considered the floor, not the ceiling" when it comes to providing access for disabled voters, regardless of cost.

"That's always the sort of the argument that comes up about providing access -- that it costs too much," Garrett said. "How do you weigh the cost against the ability of those with disabilities being able to participate in the political process? That's more important than the cost."

Yolo and Placer are among Northern California counties rolling out their new disabled-access units in November.

Yolo County will have an audio-based system that will navigate voters through the ballot using a keyboard device. That system cost $900,000 for 114 machines.

In Placer County, disabled voters can use touch-screen systems with audio availability to mark their ballots. Those systems, 310 in all, cost $1.7 million."

Posted by Randy Riddle at 08:55 AM | Permalink. . .

August 07, 2006

"Whistle-blower Lawsuit Alleges E-voting Fraud"

"A federal whistle-blower lawsuit has been filed that claims one e-voting company knowingly sold electronic voting devices that did not perform as promised.

But details about the suit are sketchy because of secrecy rules surrounding whistle-blower litigation, according to Matt Schultz, an attorney at Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Echsner & Proctor PA, the Pensacola, Fla.-based law firm that is handling the case. Schultz was assigned to the suit, but the lead attorneys are Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Kennedy, son of the late New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, gained attention with a recent story he wrote for Rolling Stone magazine in which he questioned the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. The whistle-blower lawsuit is not related to the allegations in the story.

The lawsuit was filed about four weeks ago, but Schultz was unable to divulge in which federal district the filing took place. He was also unable to discuss which e-voting machine vendor is targeted, because the document is under seal.

According to Schultz, employees at one of the four major e-voting vendors in the U.S. have testified to misrepresentations by the unnamed company about the accuracy, reliability and security of the direct recording electronic devices. DRE usually signifies a touch-screen voting system.

The lawsuit is not related to any particular election outcome. "This is about faulty machines being fobbed off on the government and being bought with federal money under the Help America Vote Act," Schultz said. Among its other mandates, HAVA stipulated that by last January, every election precinct in the country had to have an e-voting system that allowed handicapped voters to cast ballots unaided.

The suit has been filed under qui tam, or whistle-blower provisions of the False Claims Act, and remains under seal until the attorney general's office decides whether it will carry the suit forward, said Schultz."

The article is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 11:02 AM | Permalink. . .

August 04, 2006

"Federal Department of Justice approves Wisconsin voter rule"

"Voters without a driver's license will be able to cast a ballot on Election Day under a state rule that received federal approval.

The U.S. Department of Justice gave its OK in a letter dated Thursday to the rule that the state Elections Board passed last month.

It allows voters without a driver's license to cast a provisional ballot that would only count if the voters can produce their license by 4 p.m. the following day. To cast a provisional ballot they would have to give the last four digits of their Social Security number or present a state identification card.

People who wanted to register to vote at the polls would have to have their driver's license.

The board reached the approach as a compromise after an earlier rule drew criticism from U.S. Reps. Mark Green, R-Green Bay, and Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls, and the state Republican Party, which said it would violate 2002's federal Help America Vote Act.

Green issued a statement Friday saying the rule has the potential to complicate the election process but it's better than the previous version. He called the compromise a "step in the right direction."

Officials with the state Elections Board could not be reached for comment late Friday.

The new rule will be in effect for the Sept. 12 primary.

Republicans who control the state Legislature have been pushing for voters to present photo identification at the polls, saying the move would prevent voter fraud."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 05:03 PM | Permalink. . .

"Court rejects Albany shoreline ballot initiative"

"An Alameda County Superior Court judge agreed that a citizens' group in Albany did not meet public notice requirements for a ballot initiative aimed at protecting the city's shoreline.

Judge Winifred Y. Smith granted a request by Pacific Racing Association, owner of the waterfront horse-racing track Golden Gate Fields, to block the city from taking any further steps to put the initiative on the November 2006 ballot.

Citizens for the Albany Shoreline had gathered petitions to place on the ballot a measure that would impose a two-year moratorium on development and set up a committee to work on a waterfront development plan.

Pacific Racing Association contended that the citizens' group did not post the proposed measure in three public places as required by state law, and did not publish it in a paper deemed by the court to be of general circulation in the county."

The article is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 03:53 PM | Permalink. . .

August 03, 2006

"Lawsuit Filed Against Voting Machines"

"A long-simmering debate about voting machines and their accessibility to disabled voters has now led to a lawsuit filed in federal court against various elections officials, including Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.

At issue are voting machines that were used in several counties this past June, machines that local elections officials still believe meet the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

One key element of HAVA is that each polling place have at least one voting machine that allows disabled voters to cast their ballot by themselves, just like other voters. Another HAVA requirement is that all voters, regardless of their physical condition, be able to independently verify that their vote is accurate.

But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in San Francisco today say that for many disabled voters, both provisions were violated in at least five California counties on June 6. They also claim the state is in violation of the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

The case says that in San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, voters with manual disabilities are unable to use a machine known as the AutoMARK (made by Election Systems & Software) without assistance-- a violation, they argue, of HAVA."

The article is here.

One of the lawsuit's claims is that the state mandated voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) used by some DREs is not accessible to blind voters and therefore violates federal law. The Justice Department has reached a contrary conclusion, advising that the VVPAT violates neither HAVA nor the ADA.

Posted by Randy Riddle at 10:23 AM | Permalink. . .

syndicate this blog 

© 2008 Randy Riddle

home   postings   resources   about

design: sko media